alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0794n.06

Filed: September 16, 2005

No. 05-1284

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER CHARLES WOOD,

Defendant-Appellant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, MOORE and SUTTON, Circuit Judges

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This is a single issue appeal concerning defendant’s

sentence of 156 months after he pled guilty to armed bank robbery. At the sentencing hearing,

defendant’s counsel requested a sentence below the applicable Guideline range for a “career

offender” under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, § 4B1.1 (requiring that defendant have “at least

two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense”). The

parties agree that this provision is applicable and provides a sentencing guideline range of between

151 and 188 months, although after United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Guidelines

are advisory only. The government argued for a sentence within the Guideline range in response

to the defendant’s argument for a sentence below the Guideline range. The defendant asserts on

appeal that the government’s argument was a material breach of the plea agreement between the
No. 05-1284

United States v. Wood

-2-

parties because the plea agreement states that “the United States also agrees not to oppose any

argument offered by the defendant that his sentence should be the lowest permissible under the

applicable sentencing guideline range.” The plea agreement does not prohibit the government from

arguing against a sentence below the “applicable guideline” range. The agreement does not prohibit

the government, therefore, from arguing in opposition to the defendant’s argument for a sentence

below the applicable guideline range.

In view of the fact that the parties agreed with the pre-sentence report that the applicable

Guideline range was between 151 and 188 months, and in view of the fact that the government

complied with the agreement and did not oppose an argument for a sentence at the low end of the

applicable sentencing guideline range, we conclude that there is no basis for vacating or setting aside

the sentence imposed by the District Court. The defendant did not explicitly argue for a sentence

at the low end of the applicable Guideline range, but rather argued for a sentence below the

applicable Guideline range. Hence, we find no violation of the plea agreement.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 659

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990

to replace the prohibition on higher State make allowances for the processing of milk with a requirement that the support purchase price for

milk be reduced if a person collects a State make allowance that is

higher than the Federal make allowance and the milk is purchased

by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 31 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade

Act of 1990 to replace the prohibition on higher State

make allowances for the processing of milk with a requirement that the support purchase price for milk be

reduced if a person collects a State make allowance that

is higher than the Federal make allowance and the milk

is purchased by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and

for other purposes.

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

•S 659 IS

1 SECTION 1. MILK MANUFACTURING MARKETING ADJUST2 MENT.

3 Subsections (a) and (b) of section 102 of the Food,

4 Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7

5 U.S.C. 1446e–1) are amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

7 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL MAKE ALLOWANCE.—The term

8 ‘Federal make allowance’ means the allowance for

9 the processing of milk that is permitted under a

10 Federal program to establish a Grade A price for

11 manufacturing butter, nonfat dry milk, or cheese.

12 ‘‘(2) PERSON.—The term ‘person’ includes a

13 cooperative.

14 ‘‘(3) STATE MAKE ALLOWANCE.—The term

15 ‘State make allowance’ means the allowance for the

16 processing of milk that is permitted by a State for

17 manufacturing butter, nonfat dry milk, or cheese.

18 ‘‘(b) MILK MANUFACTURING MARKETING ADJUST19 MENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a

20 person collects a State make allowance that is higher than

21 the Federal make allowance and the milk or product of

22 milk that is subject to the allowance is purchased by the

23 Commodity Credit Corporation, regardless of the point of

24 sale, the Corporation shall reduce the support purchase

25 price for the milk and each product of the milk by an

26 amount that is equal to the difference between the State
3

•S 659 IS

1 make allowance and the Federal make allowance for the

2 milk and product, as determined by the Secretary of Agri3 culture.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,119
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,693
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     37,101
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          55,736
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         68,327
<ALLOWANCE>                                        500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,672
<DEPOSITS>                                     131,865
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,637
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                569
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 176,672
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,649
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,640
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   175
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,464
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,119
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,390
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,074
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  18
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,398
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,398
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.40
<LOANS-NON>                                        348
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  500
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            500
        

</TABLE>
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2011- Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-18-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval 

Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to 

submit a separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “Ex Parte Contacts.”)

ORGANIZATION PERSON 

CONTACTED

DATE RESPONSE

Honeywell Mike Branch/ Jim 

Niessink

602-231-3342

4-1-2011 Concur.

 

NBAA Eli Coti

202-737-4479

4-1-2011/ 5-11-

2011

No response.

 

NATA Stan Mackiewicz/ 

Mike France

703-845-9000

4-1-2011/ 5-11-

2011

No response.

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
Exhibit 4.4.1.10


 


Synopsis
of terms of employment for Peter Abraham


 


Mr Abraham does not have a
formally documented employment contract. 
The terms of his employment are a combination of common law and
statutory provisions and terms agreed between Mr Abraham and the company.  His employment is also subject to a Federal
staff award and agreements between the company and the CSR & Rinker
Salaried Staff Association.  The key provisions
include:


•                  Term of employment - other than in the case
of misconduct, the company is required to give 12 months notice of termination,
or may provide payment in lieu of notice. 
If payment in lieu of notice is given, the amount will be equivalent to
12 months total remuneration - including at least target incentives.  If he is made redundant, Mr Abraham is
entitled to the greater of: (a) the amount referred to in the previous
sentence; or (b) 3 months base remuneration (base remuneration is equivalent to
approximately 75% of fixed remuneration) plus 0.7 months base remuneration per
year of service, up to a maximum of 24 months base remuneration.  Unpaid amounts of accrued leave are also
payable.  Mr Abraham is required to give
3 months notice of termination.


•                  Fixed remuneration is reviewed annually.  Mr Abraham is eligible to participate in
both long and short-term incentive plans.


•                  Employee share plans - Mr Abraham is entitled
to participate in employee share plans available to Australian executives and
employees.


•                  Superannuation - Mr Abraham is a member of a
Rinker group sponsored superannuation fund and is entitled to benefits in
accordance with the rules of that fund.


•                  Leave entitlements - Mr Abraham is entitled
to leave in accordance with the Federal staff award.
#### RADCLIFF FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY MOTOR SALES, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3558.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June 6, 1958.

H. A. Crawford, Houston, for appellant.

Fowler & Conn, Louis A. Pontello, Jr., Houston, for appellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

Radcliff Finance Corporation sued City Motor Sales, Inc., on a promissory note and prayed for foreclosure of an alleged lien on a certain Chevrolet automobile against City Motor Sales and against C. F. Montgomery. Montgomery had purchased the car from City Motor Sales. This case was one of a group of cases involving transactions between Radcliff Finance Corporation and City Motor Sales, Inc., and a number of different purchasers of automobiles from City Motor Sales. All of these cases were referred to a Master, who took evidence collectively in all the cases. Thereafter this case was severed and trial was before the court without a jury. The Trial Court entered judgment for Radcliff Finance against City Motor Sales on the note, and entered judgment for C. F. Montgomery for title and possession of the automobile involved. Radcliff Finance appeals. The Trial Court, at the request of Radcliff Finance filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are in support of the judgment entered. Thereafter the Trial Court, at the request of Radcliff Finance Corporation, filed certain Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Counsel for Radcliff failed to advise counsel for C. F. Montgomery that he was making request for the Additional Findings and Conclusions. Thereafter counsel for Radcliff requested the clerk, under Rule 376, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, to include certain items in the Transcript on appeal, *including the Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of*Law, *but*furnished counsel for C. F. Montgomery a purported copy of such request which was silent as to the request for *Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.*

Counsel for C. F. Montgomery has moved that the Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law be stricken since Rule 376 was not complied with.

We think that such motion is good, and hereby strike the Trial Court’s Addi*651tional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

The remaining Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law all sustain the judgment of the Trial Court. Further to the foregoing, however, we have carefully reviewed the complete record in this cause, and find no error. The judgment of the Trial Court is accordingly Affirmed.

HALE, J., took no part in the consideration and disposition of this case.
#### Horton B. DOBSON et ux., Petitioners, v. DON JANUARY ROOFING CO., Inc., Respondent.

No. A-10993.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 13, 1965.

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, Larry L. Gollaher, Dallas, for petitioners.

Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, Royal H. Brin, Jr., Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is reported in 392 S.W.2d 153.

Horton B. Dobson and wife seek by their suit to recover damages from Don January Roofing Co., Inc. Their suit grows out of damage to their residence from a fire alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s employee in allowing hot ashes to fall from a cigarette he was smoking onto the roof of plaintiffs’ house which' he was repairing. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment to which was attached an affidavit of the employee. The plaintiffs filed a reply to the motion for summary judgment to which they attached an affidavit made by Mrs. Dobson. The trial court also had before it the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Dobson. Summary judgment was rendered for the defendant.

The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ petition did not state a cause of action. The stated basis for the holding was that the defendant could not be charged with liability for the negligence of its servant in the respect indicated since the smoking of the cigarette by the employee while working was not in the course of his employment.

*791We refuse writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is our opinion that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendant on the basis of the proofs made by the affidavits and depositions. Accordingly, our refusal of writ of error is not to be regarded as an approval of the holding made the basis of the Court of Civil Appeals’ judgment of affirmance.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


     I, Christopher P. Schnittker, certify that:

     1)   I  have   reviewed   this  annual  report  on  Form  10-K/A (Amendment
          No. 2)  of  Cytogen Corporation;

     2)   Based on my knowledge,  this annual report does not contain any untrue
          statement  of a  material  fact  or  omit to  state  a  material  fact
          necessary to make the statements  made, in light of the  circumstances
          under which such  statements were made, not misleading with respect to
          the period covered by this annual report; and

     3)   Based on my knowledge,  the financial statements,  and other financial
          information  included in this  annual  report,  fairly  present in all
          material respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and
          cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods  presented in
          this annual report.





                                 By:  /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker
                                      ----------------------------------------
Date:  September 19, 2003             Christopher P. Schnittker
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10286 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

TONY CONTRERAS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 130

- 9

Before ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Tony Contreras has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Contreras has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Contreras ’ s

response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 December 11, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10286 Document: 00515231848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2019No. 19

- 10286

2 nonfrivolous issue for appell ate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-10286 Document: 00515231848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2019
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 656

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel QUIETLY.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 30 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for

the vessel QUIETLY.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the
2

S 656 IS

1 coastwise trade for the vessel QUIETLY (United States

2 official number 658315).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000725813
<NAME> YVETTE DESMARAIS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         5416000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 17844000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    395000
<INVENTORY>                                   15395000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              42039000
<PP&E>                                        42127000
<DEPRECIATION>                                21238000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                77003000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11014000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        828000
<OTHER-SE>                                    63631000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  77003000
<SALES>                                       42065000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              42065000
<CGS>                                         27860000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 27860000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8509000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               82000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5614000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1789000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3825000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3825000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        


</TABLE>
Charge Questions No Mas 003 Completed Report

Study Title: Field Efficacy Test of a PMD and Lemongrass Oil-Based Repellent ‘No Mas’
Against Mosquitoes

1. Is the CLBR completed study No Mas 003 sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to be used to estimate the durat ion of complete protection against mosquitoes provided by the tested repellent?

2. Does available information support a determin ation that the studies were conducted in substantial compliance with 40 CFR Part 26, subparts K and L?
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic Change Worksheet

QPM#

AIR-ANM.()30-F4

Date: December 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA_%6fl'UJ(O~_Oq_5_7__

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date

Boeing Norm Black June 2006, September

2009

Boeing John Ostic August 2009

Boeing Shelly Benda February 2010

ATA Joe While February 2010

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master list 10Vertfy That This is the Corred Revision Before Use
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6136

MARK ANTHONY DENNIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-95-466)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Anthony Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Pletzke, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Dennis v.

Hunt, No. CA-95-466 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 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