alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursu ant 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________
No. 96-40394 Summary Calendar

__________________

DON RAY WHITE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT; D. GROUNDS; B. TEAL; JEFF CALFEE; UNIDENTIFIED LARKINS; UNIDENTIFIED SMITH,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(5:96-CV-15)

______________________________________________

August 1, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Don Ray White, Texas prisoner #512713, appeals the district

court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under

2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(d). White argues that the breakfast food he

receives is constitutionally inadequate and constitutes cruel and2

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

abuse of discretion. A ncar v. Sara Plasma, Inc. , 964 F.2d 465, 468

(5th Cir. 1992).

White's appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. S ee Howard v. King
, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because his appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. White is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. White is cautioned further to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
  /s/ William D. GreenWilliam D. GreenChief Executive Officer of Accenture
Ltd,
General Partner of Accenture SCA
(principal executive officer) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
`Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of PSF Group Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 28, 2002, as filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, John M. Meyer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, 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
Company.



                                             /s/ John M. Meyer
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             John M. Meyer,
                                             Chief Executive Officer

November 12, 2002


                                       23`
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00723

- CR

Michael P. CARACHEO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR17

- 040

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to dismiss appeal

is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED February 27, 2019.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NSF Program—EDGE Research.                    

*Date:*                         February 5, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rudy O. Pozzatti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 6908, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-8739,                         *pozzattr@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 22, 2024.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-01425 Filed 1-24-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                         [COOPERS & LYBRAND LETTERHEAD]

                                                                   EXHIBIT 16.2

December 3, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by DMI, Inc. (copy attached), which we
understand have been filed with the Commission, pursuant to Item 4 of Form 8-K,
as part of the Company's Form 8-K report for the month of November 1996. In
addition to the events reported in such Form 8-K, with which we agree,
additional information that should have been reported by the Company follows:

Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.'s reports on the Company's financial statements as of
December 31, 1995 and 1994, and for the years then ended, included an
explanatory paragraph addressing the uncertainty of the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
----------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2067 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2067

To extend certain Medicare community nursing organization demonstration 
                               projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 1996

 Mr. D'Amato (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Grams, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
Simon, and Ms. Moseley-Braun) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend certain Medicare community nursing organization demonstration 
                               projects.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN MEDICARE COMMUNITY NURSING ORGANIZATION 
              DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, demonstration projects 
conducted under section 4079 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1987 may be conducted for an additional period of 3 years, and the 
deadline for any report required relating to the results of such 
projects shall be not later than 6 months after the end of such 
additional period.
                                 <all>
```
* 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 July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41677 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN DONIS-ARREDONDO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-484-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Martin DonisArredondo raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Consent of Independent Accountants

      
     We Hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-73510 and 33-77464) of Successories, Inc. of 
our report dated April 26, 1996 appearing on page F-3 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.









PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Chicago, Illinois
April 30, 1997



                          Consent Of Independent Public Accountants


      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this form 10K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (registration nos. 33-73510 and 
33-77464).






ARTHUR ANDERSON LLP
Chicago, Illinois
April 30, 1997
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KENNETH CHARLES McNEIL, 

a.k.a Chip,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-17216

D.C. Nos.1:10-cv-00275-ALA

 1:02-cr-00547-ALA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Charles McNeil appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253, and we affirm on the basis that his motion is untimely. See United States

FILED

OCT 5 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17216

v. Kaluna, 192 F.3d 1188, 1197 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We may affirm on any basis

the record supports [.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

McNeil contends that the district court erred in failing to construe his

October 19, 2009 letter as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because he was in custody

on that date, he argues that the district court had jurisdiction over his motion.

Even if the letter is construed as a motion, it was filed over two years after

the AEDPA statute of limitations had run. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Contrary to

his assertion, he is not entitled to a later start date based on facts known to him at

the time of his conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4); United States v. Battles,

362 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, McNeil is not entitled to tolling,

because the period that he claims should be tolled occurred after the statute of

limitations period had run.

AFFIRMED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1875

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse in Medford,

Oregon, as the ‘‘James A. Redden Federal Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1875 RFH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The United States courthouse at 310 West Sixth

3 Street in Medford, Oregon, shall be known and designated

4 as the ‘‘James A. Redden Federal Courthouse’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

8 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

9 to be a reference to the ‘‘James A. Redden Federal Court10 house’’.

Passed the Senate September 24, 1996.

Attest: KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2058

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for 11

circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 6, 1996

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. KYL) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to

provide for 11 circuit judges on the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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

3 SECTION 1. JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF AP4 PEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIR5 CUIT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The table under section 44(a) of

7 title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the
2

•S 2058 IS

1 item relating to the District of Columbia and inserting the

2 following:

‘‘District of Columbia ............................................................................... 11’’.

3 (b) EXISTING VACANCY NOT FILLED.—In order to

4 comply with the amendment made under subsection (a),

5 a vacancy of a circuit judge on the United States Court

6 of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which ex7 isted on the date preceding the date of the enactment of

8 this Act, shall not be filled.

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                                LEASE EXTENSION
                            DATED DECEMBER 5, 1996

                    EXTENSION TO LEASE DATED MARCH 1, 1996
                    BETWEEN BOBWHITE MEADOW, L.P. (LESSOR)
                     AND FARALLON COMPUTING, INC. (LESEE)

The Lease is amended by restating paragraphs 2 (page 1) and 5 (page 4) to read 
as follows:

2.  LEASE TERM

      (a)  The term of this Lease is for one year, (12 months). The term of this
Lease shall commence on the first day of July 1997 (the "Commencement Date"), 
and shall end on the thirtieth day of June 1998, both dates inclusive (see 
paragraph 5).


5.  OPTION TO EXTEND TERM

      "Lessee and Lessor shall meet on or before December 30, 1997 which is six 
months prior to the expiration date of this lease (June 30, 1998) to determine 
either the extension or termination of this lease. Lessee may have a grace 
period of up to two (2) months from December 30, 1997 in which to finalize the 
decision to cancel or renew. Lessee shall be required to give six (6) months 
notice of termination to the Lessor. If the Lessee utilizes any portion of the 
grace period, this term of this lease will automatically be extended a like 
period in order to allow the Lessor to have six (6) months notice."


================================================================================
================================================================================


/s/ Becky Campbell          
____________________________(LESSOR)

Bobwhite Meadow LP          
____________________________Company Name

/s/ Alan Lefkof             
____________________________(LESSEE)

Farallon Communications
____________________________Company Name
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6380

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY TERRELL WASHINGTON, a/k/a Antonio Williams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR96-175, CA-99-2726) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Terrell Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Troy Terrell Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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. United States v. Washington , Nos. CR-96-175; CA99-2726 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2001). 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
**EXHIBIT 12**

**FIRST REPUBLIC PREFERREDCAPITAL CORPORATION****(A Majority Owned Subsidiary of First Republic Bank)**

**STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF****RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

|                                                |   | **Three Months Ended****March 31,** |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   |                                     |   |
|                                                |   | **2003**                            |   | **2002** |   |
|                                                |   |                                     |   |  |   |
|                                                |   | **($ in thousands)**                |   |
| I.  Earnings:                             |   |                                |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income                                          |   | $                                   | 2,782  |   | $ | 2,737 |   |
| Fixed charges excluding preferred stock dividends   |   |                                | — |   |   | — |   |
|                                                |   |                                     |        |   |  |  |   |
| Earnings before fixed charges                       |   | $                                   | 2,782  |   | $ | 2,737 |   |
|                                                |   |                                     |        |   |  |  |   |
|                                                |   |                                |   |   |   |   |   |
| II.  Fixed charges:                       |   |                                |   |   |   |   |   |
| Preferred stock dividends                           |   | $                                   | 2,475  |   | $ | 2,237 |   |
|                                                |   |                                     |        |   |  |  |   |
|                                                |   |                                |   |   |   |   |   |
| III.  Ratios of earnings to fixed charges |   |                                | 1.12x  |   |   | 1.22x |   |
|                                                |   |                                     |        |   |  |  |   |
Exhibit 10.5


 





Summary of Changes to Compensation Arrangements


With Non-Management Directors


 


 


As previously disclosed, each non-management Director is currently
paid an annual retainer, a portion of which is paid in cash and a portion of which is paid in restricted stock. The cash portion
of the annual retainer, which is paid in cash on a monthly basis, was increased from $70,000 to $80,000, effective October 15,
2011. The amount of the annual retainer paid in restricted stock was increased from $115,000 to $125,000 effective as of the Company’s
Annual Meeting of Stockholders in February 2012. For additional information regarding compensation arrangements with the Company’s
non-management Directors, please see Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2007, which is incorporated by reference herein.