alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41341

Summary Calendar

PAUL K HOWE

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

POLUNSKY UNIT

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:08-CV-142

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul K. Howe, Texas prisoner # 1473851, appeals the dismissal as

frivolous of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He

argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint

on the basis that Howe named the Polunsky Unit as the sole defendant.

A pro se prisoner’s failure to name any legal entity as a defendant does not

warrant dismissal of the complaint when it is clear from his complaint that there

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-41341

2

is a potential ground for relief. Gallegos v. Louisiana Code of Criminal

Procedures Art. 658, 858 F.2d 1091, 1092 (5th Cir. 1988). Howe’s complaint

alleges Eighth Amendment violations concerning deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs and inhumane conditions of confinement, which are

potential grounds for relief. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir.

1999). Consequently, the judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the

district court for proceedings not inconsistent with Gallegos.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3075]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3232, Amdt. 2]


State of Kentucky

    In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency dated January 24, 2000, the above-numbered 
Declaration is hereby amended to include Hancock and Henderson Counties 
in the State of Kentucky as a disaster area due to damages caused by 
tornadoes, severe storms, torrential rains, and flash flooding that 
occurred on January 3-4, 2000.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the contiguous County of Breckinridge, Kentucky, 
and Perry, Posey, and Vanderburgh Counties in Indiana may be filed 
until the specified date at the previously designated location. Any 
counties contiguous to the above-named primary counties and not listed 
herein have been previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is March 10, 2000 and for 
economic injury the deadline is October 10, 2000.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: February 2, 2000.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-3075 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

MONTCA MORENO (1),

Case Number: 3 :22-CR-00423-M

Defendant.

RIPORT AND RBCOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

MONICA MORENO (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F,3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has

appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. ll, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. After

cautioning and examining MONICA MORENO (1) under oath conceming each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I

deterrnined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) charged is supported by an

independentbasisinfactcontainingeachoftheessentialelementsofsuchoffense. Ithereforerecommendthatthepleaof

guiltybeaccepted,andthatMONICA MORENO(1) beadjudgedguiltyof 18U.S.C.$$2119(1)and2CarJacking;

Aiding and Abefting and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the district judge,

f

/

The defendant is cunently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to l8 U.S.C, $ 31a3(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

6 / The Government does not oppose release.

Z7 The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

d I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under $ 3142(b) or (c).

n The Government opposes release.

n The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

tr If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown

under g 3la5(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released,

Date: October 26,2023.

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen ( 14) days from the date of its

service shall bar an aggrieved purty from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. $636(bXl)(B).

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

tr

UNITED STATES MAGI

Case 3:22-cr-00423-M Document 27 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 75
**EXHIBIT 12:**   **COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCKDIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS**           For the Twelve Months Ended   December 31,   2004  2003 **INCLUDING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS**                 Earnings:        Income before income taxes $4,131,629  $3,659,005 Fixed charges  1,548,662   1,525,810 Interest capitalized during period, net ofamortization of previously capitalized interest  (11,308)  (14,579)       Earnings, for computation purposes $5,668,983  $5,170,236                 Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements:        Interest on deposits, short-term borrowings,and long-term debt and bank notes,expensed or capitalized $1,544,387  $1,524,040 Portion of rents representative of the interest factor  4,275   1,770        Fixed charges  1,548,662   1,525,810 Preferred stock dividend requirements  21,704   22,009        Fixed charges and preferred stock dividend requirements,including interest on deposits, for computation purposes $1,570,366  $1,547,819                 Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividendrequirements, including interest on deposits  3.61   3.34          **EXCLUDING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS**                 Earnings:        Income before income taxes $4,131,629  $3,659,005 Fixed charges  566,835   418,004 Interest capitalized during period, net ofamortization of previously capitalized interest  (11,329)  (14,600)       Earnings, for computation purposes $4,687,135  $4,062,409                 Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements:        Interest on short-term borrowingsand long-term debt and bank notes,expensed or capitalized $562,560  $416,234 Portion of rents representative of the interest factor  4,275   1,770        Fixed charges  566,835   418,004 Preferred stock dividend requirements  21,704   22,009        Fixed charges and preferred stock dividend requirements,excluding interest on deposits, for computation purposes $588,539  $440,013                 Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividendrequirements, excluding interest on deposits  7.96   9.23 
The ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividend requirements iscomputed by dividing (i) income before income taxes and fixed charges less interest capitalizedduring such period, net of amortization of previously capitalized interest, by (ii) fixed chargesand preferred stock dividend requirements. Fixed charges consist of interest, expensed orcapitalized, on borrowings (including or excluding deposits, as applicable), and the portion ofrental expense which is deemed representative of interest. The preferred stock dividendrequirements represent the pre-tax earnings which would have been required to cover such dividendrequirements on the Corporation’s Preferred Stock outstanding.
#### CUNNINGHAM v. STATE.

No. 20030.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1938.

Forrester Hancock and Jno. M. Hatter, both of Waxahachie, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully driving an automobile upon the public highway while intoxicated; penalty assessed at-confinement in the county jail and a fine of $100.

The indictment appears regular and regularly presented. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

No error having been perceived or pointed out, the judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry C. Wesley, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant’s convictions of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1], [4]) must be reversed because the trial court refused to instruct the jury, at defendant’s request, that the burden was on the People to prove that the firearm possessed by the defendant was operable. Although the definition of firearm does not include the requirement that it be operable, courts have held that a person cannot be convicted of criminal possession of a weapon under Penal Law § 265.02 (1) and (4) unless the People prove that the firearm possessed by the defendant is operable *941
      *(People v Cavines,*70 NY2d 882; *People v Shaffer,*66 NY2d 663, 664; *People v Wearing,*126 AD2d 586, *lv denied*69 NY2d 888; *People v Actie,*99 AD2d 815).

We also note that it was error for the trial court to admit testimony concerning defendant’s pretrial silence *(see, People v Conyers,*52 NY2d 454). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.—criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1556 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1556

 To extend until December 31, 1998, the temporary suspension of duties 
        on 7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyltetrahydronaphthalene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 1993

  Mr. Gilman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend until December 31, 1998, the temporary suspension of duties 
       on 7-Acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexa- methyltetrahydronaphthalene.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTIES ON 7-ACETYL-
              1,1,3,4,4,6-HEXA- METHYLTETRAHYDRONAPHTHALENE.

    That heading 9902.30.16 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States is amended by striking out ``12/31/92'' and inserting in 
lieu thereof ``12/31/98.''

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to goods entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Application for Certain Liquidations and 
Reliquidations.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with the 
appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after the date of 
enactment of this Act, any entry--
            (1) that was made after December 31, 1992, and before the 
        15th day after such enactment; and
            (2) with respect to which there would have been a lesser or 
        no duty if any amendment made by this Act applied to such 
        entry;
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amendment applied to 
such entry.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6720
RAYMOND ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; JOSEPH HENNEBERRY, Director, Patuxent Institution; PATUXENT BOARD OF REVIEW, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-94- 1679-L) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart Milton Nathan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, 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 accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Adams v. Robinson , No. CA94-1679-L (D. Md. Apr. 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.44

August 14, 2010

Otto Balintijn

Reduct NV

Molenberglei 42

2627 Schelle

Belgium

Letter Agreement Modifying the Amended and Restated

Exclusive License and Distribution Agreement

This Letter Agreement dated August 14, 2010 between Geospatial Holdings, Inc. and Reduct NV hereby modifies The Amended and Restated
Exclusive License and Distribution Agreement signed by the parties on December
15th, 2009 as follows:

The Minimum Purchase Quantity payment of $2,500,000 USD due to be paid by Geospatial Holdings, Inc. to Reduct NV on June
30th, 2010 has been extended until September
15th, 2010.

All other terms and conditions of The Amended and Restated Exclusive License and Distribution Agreement remain in full force and effect.

Agreed to as of this date.



|                   |  |  |  |                          
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Reduct NV          |  |  |  | Geospatial Holdings, Inc.
|                   |  | 
|/s/ Otto Balintijn |  |  |  | /s/ Mark Smith           
|Otto Balintijn     |  |  |  | Mark Smith               
|Managing Director  |  |  |  | President
#### John LAKE, Appellant, v. AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 8996.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

March 27, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1940.

W. R. Smith, Jr., of Austin, for appellant.

Hart & Brown, of Austin, for appellee.

BLAIR, Justice.

This case arose as a workmen’s compensation case, and is companion to and controlled by the decision of this court this day announced in the case of Bonner v. American General Ins. Co., 139 S.W.2d 204. Suffice it to say that appellant, John Lake, was the employee; Brown & Root, Inc., and McKenzie Construction Company, the employers; and appellee, American General Insurance Company, was' the insurer. Appellant was employed on the same job with Howard Bonner, as shown in the companion case; and his claim was denied by the Industrial Accident Board upon the ground that his alleged injuries resulted from an occupational disease. Except as to a slightly shorter period of employment, his petition on appeal to the District Court *207alleged identical facts as to occupational disease and negligence of his employers as did Bonner’s petition.

Upon authority of the Bonner case, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CERES MARINE TERMINALS,

INCORPORATED,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 96-2681

JOHN GEMMA; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board.

(95-583-BRB)

Argued: October 31, 1997

Decided: January 22, 1998

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Thomas Cecilio Valkenet, YOUNG & VALKENET,

L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gerald Francis Gay,

ARNOLD, BACOT, GAY & DARBY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,

for Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc., appeals the entry of an order awarding benefits to its employee, John Gemma, under the Longshore and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. We

vacate the order and remand for rehearing.

Gemma sought compensation for permanent partial disability of his

right arm--a scheduled disability. See 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(1) and (19)

(1994). Ceres claimed that Gemma injured his shoulder--a nonscheduled disability which requires that an employee prove that he suffered

a diminished earning capacity as a result of his disability. See 33

U.S.C. § 908(c)(21) (1994).

Gemma stipulated at the outset of the hearing that he would not

prove diminished earning capacity. The ALJ, however, after finding

that Gemma suffered an injury to his shoulder, found that he had suffered a 5.4% diminution in earnings capacity as evidenced by the difference between his earnings and those of others of equal position and

seniority. The ALJ inferred that the earnings difference was causally

connected to Gemma's injury "in the absence of any other explanation." Because Ceres' petition for review had been pending before the

Benefits Review Board for more than a year, the decision of the ALJ

was considered affirmed for the purpose of review in the court of

appeals. Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134,

110 Stat. 1321-219.

An ALJ may consider new issues prior to entry of a compensation

order and may in his discretion give notice that he will consider any

new issue. 20 C.F.R. § 702.336(b) (1997). Although this notice is discretionary, the ALJ abused his discretion here by failing to notify the

parties that he would consider an issue that Gemma's own stipulation

had removed from consideration at the hearing. The ALJ did not give

 2
Ceres notice and, in effect, precluded it from offering a defense based

on evidence of another explanation for Gemma's diminished earnings.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 3
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30368]


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

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIMES AND DATES: 1 p.m., Monday, December 4, 2000; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, 
December 5, 2000; 10 a.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2000.

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

STATUS: December 4 (Closed); December 5--8:30 a.m. (Open); 10 a.m. 
(Closed).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   
Monday, December 4--1 p.m. (Closed)
    1. Audit Committee Report and Review of Year-End Financial 
Statements.
    2. Preliminary Fiscal year 2002 Appropriation Request.
    3. Postal Rate Commission Opinion and Recommended Decision in 
Docket No. R2000-1, Omnibus Rate Case.
    4. Personnel Matters.
    5. Compensation Issues.
    6. Strategic Planning.
    7. Fiscal year 2001 EVA Variable Pay Program.
Tuesday, December 5--8:30 a.m. (Open)
    1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, November 13-14, 2000.
    2. Remarks of the Postmaster General/Chief Executive Officer.
    3. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2000 Audited Financial Statements.
    4. Final Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriation Request.
    5. Capital Investments.

    a. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, P&DC Ramp and Maneuvering Area 
Restoration.
    b. Indianapolis, Indiana, Consolidated Mail Processing Annex.
    c. Automated Flat Feed and OCR Additional Funding.

    6. Tentative Agenda for the January 8-9, 2001, meeting in 
Washington, DC.
Tuesday, December 5--10 a.m. (Closed)
    1. Continuation of Monday's Closed Agenda.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David G. Hunter, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30368 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1134 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the credit for 

nonbusiness energy property for 2008. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2009 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. EHLERS, and Mr. 

SOUDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

credit for nonbusiness energy property for 2008. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROP4 ERTY ALLOWED FOR 2008. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 25C of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for nonbusiness en7 ergy property) is amended by redesignating subsection (g) 

8 as subsection (h) and by inserting after subsection (f) the 

9 following new subsection: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1134 IH

1 ‘‘(g) CREDIT FOR 2008 ALLOWED ON 2009 RE2 TURN.—For purposes of this section, property placed in 

3 service during 2008 shall be treated as placed in service 

4 during the taxpayer’s first taxable year ending after De5 cember 31, 2008.’’. 

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

7 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after 

8 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS