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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4309

WAYNE LEE BATES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-86-60)

Submitted: December 22, 1999

Decided: January 13, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas M. Blaylock, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennie L. M. Waering, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Lee Bates filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West

Supp. 1999), challenging, inter alia, his convictions on seven counts

of interstate transportation of forged traveler's checks in violation of

18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 (West Supp. 1999). The district court had sentenced Bates to consecutive five-year prison terms on each of these

seven convictions, five years on two counts of violating 28 U.S.C.

§ 2312 (1994), and five years on one count of conspiracy pertaining

to the substantive charges, for a total of forty-five years in prison.

Finding that the transportation of the seven forged traveler's checks

across state lines constituted only a single offense, this court vacated

six of the seven counts and remanded for resentencing on the single

remaining § 2314 conviction for transporting the seven forged checks.

The district court resentenced Bates to ten years in prison, the statutory maximum, for the single § 2314 violation, giving him a total sentence of twenty years in prison. Bates now appeals, claiming that the

district court vindictively gave him a higher sentence on the single

§ 2314 conviction because he successfully challenged his initial conviction. We find no merit to his claim. Consequently, we affirm.

Due process prohibits a district court from vindictively resentencing a defendant for successfully attacking his first conviction. See

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 725 (1969). A defendant's

resentencing is not considered vindictive where"the ultimate sentence

for one or more counts does not exceed that given for all counts sentenced at the conclusion of the first trial." United States v. Gray, 852

F.2d 136, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Here, Bates' new sentence for the single conviction of transporting

the seven forged checks across state lines is lower than his initial sentence for the seven separate counts of transporting the seven checks

across state lines. We find no vindictiveness in Bates' resentencing.

Consequently, we affirm. 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

 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

August 18, 1998

Mr. Cosmos Lykos

Dear Cosmos:

We are pleased to offer you the position of Vice President, General Counsel,
reporting directly to Paul Mikos, President and CEO. We anticipate your start
date to be on or before September 28, 1998, and your starting salary will be
$140,000. Also, you will receive an annual MBO potential of $35,000. You and
Paul will mutually determine your MBOs within the first 60 days of your
employment. You will receive a $300/month car allowance including reimbursement
for gas receipts, and phone reimbursement up to $200/month.

Pending approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, you
will also receive 12,000 stock options valued as of the day we extended the
offer, August 13, 1998 at ($17.93/share). These options will vest over a
five-year period at 20% a year. After 6 months of employment, you may also
participate in the Remedy Stock Purchase Plan.

You will be eligible for Remedy's Executive Health Benefits Program, which
includes a fully paid Health Plan, a $5,000 Medical Reimbursement Program, a
$100,000 Whole Life Insurance Policy and a Long Term Disability Plan, beginning
the 1st of the month, 90 days from your start date. Remedy will reimburse you
for all costs incurred by you to continue your old benefits plan (COBRA), until
your Remedy benefits begin. Also, you will be eligible to participate in the
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan. Also, you will be eligible for three weeks
vacation a year. Additionally, should Remedy be purchased, acquired or merged,
and as a result, you are terminated, at no fault of your own within one year of
that activity, you will be provided one year severance pay of base and bonus.

This offer is contingent on appropriate references. We are looking forward to
your being an integral part of the Remedy team.

Sincerely,



Jeff Elias                               Accepted By:
Senior Vice President
HR and Administration                    /s/ COSMOS LYKOS        August 18, 1998
                                         ---------------------------------------
JE/mw                                    Cosmos Lykos                   Date

CC:      Paul Mikos, President, and CEO
         Bob McDonough, Chairman
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 464

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 1995

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To make the reporting deadlines for studies conducted in

Federal court demonstration districts consistent with the

deadlines for pilot districts, 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,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND

4 DELAY REDUCTION DEMONSTRATION PRO5 GRAMS.

6 Section 104 of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990

7 (28 U.S.C. 471 note) is amended—

8 (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘‘4-year pe9 riod’’ and inserting ‘‘5-year period’’; and
2

S 464 RFH

1 (2) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘December 31,

2 1995,’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 1996,’’.

Passed the Senate March 30 (legislative day, March

27), 1995.

Attest: SHEILA P. BURKE,

Secretary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6754

GUY LANCASTER RICHMOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; PRISON

HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA96-808-WMN)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Guy Lancaster Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen,

Mindy S. Kursban, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Richmond v. Maryland Correctional Institution, No. CA-96-808-WMN (D.

Md. May 1, 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
May 19 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

COHEN ACQUIS I TION CORP. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00330

- CV V.

EEPB, P.C., F/K/A EA SLEY, ENDRES, PARKHI LL & BRACKENDORFF, P .C.

, Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, EEPB, P.C., f/k/a Easley, Endres, Parkhill & Brackendorff, P.C., signed February 12, 2014 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Cohen Acquis i tion Corp

., to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
_____________ No. 95-2732NE

_____________ Leroy Bear Robe; * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Merilyn R. Bear Robe, * * Plaintiff, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Alliance City Schools; * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellee, * * Mark Monroe, * * Defendant. *

_____________ Submitted: March 21, 1996 Filed: March 26, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. LeroyBear Robe appeals the district court's grant of summar y judg ment in favor of Alliance City Schools in Bear Robe's employmen t discri mination action. Having carefully reviewed the record and th e partie s' briefs, we conclude the district court's judgment for Allianc e CitySchools was correct, and an extended discussion is not warranted . Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 474

To provide a veterans bill of rights.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1995

Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To provide a veterans bill of rights.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Bill of Rights

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.

7 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall take any ac8 tion necessary to ensure that any rights and benefits pro9 vided under title 38, United States Code, to veterans who

10 qualify for the rights and benefits—

11 (1) are made available to the veterans in any 1

12 State or geographic location to the same extent as
2

•S 474 IS

1 the rights and benefits are made available to the vet2 erans in any other State or geographic location; and

3 (2) are not denied to any veteran on the basis

4 of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, or geographic

5 location.

6 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

7 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ has the

8 same meaning given such term in section 101(20) of title

9 38, United States Code.

Æ
TO: Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2010-1078: EPA Action on Revision to South Coast Portion 

of the California State Implementation Plan; CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 

Tracking System

FROM: Ann Lyons, Laura Yannayon

DATE: October 12, 2012

RE: Telephone Conference with South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Representatives

Participants: 

Barbara Baird, Lauren Nevitt: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Laura Yannayon, Ann Lyons: EPA Region 9

EPA requested the telephone conference. The purpose of the telephone conference was for EPA 

to ask the South Coast Air Quality Management District for additional information regarding 

some of the offset transactions in the AB 1318 Tracking System. EPA also asked the District 

representatives questions about information in its AQMPs.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02365]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Indicator for 
Recommending a Cost Share Adjustment

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita indicator for 
recommending cost share adjustments for major disasters declared on or 
after January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024 is $179.

DATES: This notice applies to major disasters declared on or after 
January 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 
20472, (202) 646-3834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.47, the statewide per 
capita indicator that is used to recommend an increase of the Federal 
cost share from seventy-five percent (75%) to not more than ninety 
percent (90%) of the eligible cost of permanent work under section 406 
and emergency work under section 403 and section 407 of the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is adjusted 
annually. The adjustment to the indicator is based on the Consumer 
Price Index for All Urban Consumers published annually by the U.S. 
Department of Labor. For disasters declared on January 1, 2024, through 
December 31, 2024, the qualifying indicator is $179 per capita of state 
or tribal population.
    This adjustment is based on an increase of 3.4 percent in the 
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the 12-month period 
that ended December 2023. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. 
Department of Labor released the information on January 11, 2024.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-02365 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



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

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                       



|Date: August 10, 2009
|---------------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Hobert BARGO, Petitioner, v. Ray C. LEWIS, Judge of Knox Circuit *Court,*Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 4, 1957.

Charles G. Cole, Jr., Earl L. Cole, Tuggle & Cole,’ Barbourville, for petitioner.

*758CULLEN, Commissioner.

On April 3, 1957, judgment by default, for failure to appear, was entered in favor of Hobert Bargo in an action against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. On April 19 motion was filed by counsel for the insurance company to set aside the default judgment, and on May 31 an order was entered setting aside the judgment on the ground of excusable neglect. Bargo has petitioned this Court for an order of prohibition against the circuit judge, prohibiting him from setting aside the judgment.

It is exceedingly doubtful whether prohibition is an available kind of remedy in this situation. While there is no right of direct appeal from the order setting aside the judgment, the order may be reviewed upon appeal from the final judgment that eventually may be entered in the case. Only a very short period of time elapsed between the entry of the default judgment and the filing of the motion to set it aside. Under these circumstances, Bargo hardly falls into the classification of a person who will suffer great and irreparable injury without adequate remedy by appeal.

Notwithstanding the doubt as to whether the kind of remedy sought is available, we have considered the merits of the petition. It appears that summons was served on the Commissioner of Insurance, as statutory process agent for the defendant insurance company, on February 27, 1957. The action was brought in the Knox Circuit Court, at Barbourville. On or about March 12, the insurance company retained a Lexington attorney to defend the case. On the same day, the Lexington attorney telephoned a Barbourville attorney and asked him to be associated in the case. The telephone conversation was followed by a confirming letter to the Barbourville attorney.

In the telephone conversation and in the confirming letter, the Lexington attorney asked the Barbourville attorney to secure an extension of time for answering the complaint. However the Barbourville attorney misunderstood the request and received the impression that he was merely to assist in the trial of the case and was being asked to secure a postponement of the time for trial after the pleadings had been taken care of by the Lexington attorney.

The situation, therefore, was one in which the Lexington attorney thought he had arranged with the Barbourville attorney to obtain an extension of time for answering and the latter thought he was to be concerned only with the trial of the case. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the circuit court judge abused his discretion in finding that the default was the result of inadvertence or excusable neglect. See CR 55.02, 60.02; Rosen v. Galizio, 184 Ky. 367, 212 S.W. 104. Default judgments are not favored, and it appears from the tendered answer that the defendant has meritorious defenses.

The order of prohibition is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) ALFIN, 
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS 
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH (B) FORM 10K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,210,972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  680,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,255,033
<INVENTORY>                                  3,271,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,908,981
<PP&E>                                       4,998,954
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,537,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,228,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,922,184
<BONDS>                                      1,938,325
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          750,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,629
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,131,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,228,186
<SALES>                                     34,733,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,733,375
<CGS>                                       11,380,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,532,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (53300)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             313,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,873,692
<INCOME-TAX>                                   181,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,692,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,692,692
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
List of Documents Submitted by the State of Colorado

 December 31, 2012, Letter from Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer, Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment to Carl Daly, Air Program Director, U.S. EPA Region 8, Denver, CO. Certification that the states meets the requirements of Clean Air Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.  State of Colorado Provisions to Meet the Requirements of Section 110(a ) (1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
Aero-M Maintenance 

In order to maintain the continued safe operation of the Aero-M platform and to maintain it running 

at its optimal performance, we will maintain the Aero-M aircraft at the following intervals: 

If any part of the Aero-M or its support equipment show signs of fatigue or damage, it will be 

immediately grounded until the component has been properly replaced by PIC per manufacturer 

recommendations. 

Every flight 

-Inspect the batteries for any signs of damage or abnormality as well as operating voltage. 

-Inspect motor for any signs of abnormal wear, rough movement, or contact. 

-Inspect propeller for any cracks, debris, or abnormalities. 

-Inspect fuselage for any cracks or abnormalities. 

-Clean dusty components with compressed air or a soft cloth. 

-Perform Safety Check 

Every 30 days or 10 hours of flight (whichever comes first) 

-Cycle flight batteries 

-Perform Safety Check 

-Run motor and observe for any wobble, abnormal sound or roughness. 

-Inspect motor mount and fasteners to ensure tight and secure. 

-Inspect fuselage for any cracks or abnormalities. 

-Inspect main wing, vertical and horizontal stabilizers for cracks or warps 

-Inspect all control linkages and connectors. 

-Inspect all surface hinges for cracks or tears 

-Replace main wing rubber bands. 

-Inspect condition and voltage of PIC controller and controller battery 

Annually or every 300 hours of flight (whichever comes first) 

-Inspect motor mount 

-Replace motor 

-Replace propeller 

-Replace all flight battery sets 

-Replace PIC controller battery 

-Inspect and clean all electrical connections 

-Check for firmware update 

-Recalibrate magnetometer 

-Inspect all control linkages and connectors 

-Replace main wing rubber bands 

-Perform Safety Check 

-Inspect main wing, vertical, and horizontal stabilizers for cracks or warps 

-Inspect all surface hinges for cracks or tears 

-Inspect all movable surfaces for wear