alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60384 Conference Calendar

EDDIE WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus INTERSTATE BRAKE PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96--CV-005-S-A

- - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eddie White appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Interstate Brake Products, Inc. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and find no reversible error in the reasoning set forth by the district court. White v. Interstate Brake Prods., Inc. , No. 3:96-CV-005-S-A (N.D. Miss. June 2, 1997). Further, we find that White’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215,No. 97-60384 -2- 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED. DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 4.5
                                Promissory Note

Payee ________
Payee's Address ________
Principal Amount $___________
Annual Principal Installment  $_____________

         For value received, RAL PURCHASING CORP., a New York corporation (the
"Company"), hereby promises to pay the Principal Amount to the order of Payee,
together with interest accruing at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal
amount from time to time unpaid Accrued interest on this Note shall be payable
monthly on the first day of each month beginning October 2003. The principal
amount of this Note shall be payable in five equal Annual Principal Installments
on December 31 of each year beginning 2004 and ending 2008. All payments of
principal and interest shall be made to Payee at Payee's Address or at such
other place as Payee shall from time to time designate to the Company in
writing.

         Upon the failure by the Company to pay any installment due hereunder
within 30 days after written notice of such failure by the holder to the
Company, the entire principal amount of this Note and all accrued interest shall
be immediately due and payable. This Note may be prepaid by the Company at any
time, without premium or penalty. This Note may not be changed or terminated
orally, and it sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. The Payee
shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs of collection.


                                            RAL PURCHASING CORP.

                                            By ______________________
Date: September ____ 2003

                                    GUARANTY

Universal Supply Group, Inc., a New York corporation ("Guarantor"), hereby
guaranties to Payee the obligations of the Company under the Note set forth
above, with the same force and effect as if Guarantor were jointly and severally
obligated with the Company under the Note. This Guaranty may not be changed or
terminated orally. The choice of law and , jurisdiction provisions of the Note
shall also apply to this Guaranty.


                                                 UNIVERSAL SUPPLY GROUP, Inc.

                                                 By ___________________________

Date: September ____, 2003











<PAGE>
NO. 07-12-0350-CR 

 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 AT AMARILLO 

 PANEL D 

 AUGUST 8, 2012 

 ______________________________ 

 TERRY ALLEN REECE, 

Appellant 

 v. 

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee 

 _________________________________ 

 FROM THE 69th DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY; 

 NO. 4419; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING 

 _______________________________ 

Order of Dismissal

 _______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Terry Allen Reece, appellant, attempts to appeal from his conviction for obstruction 

or retaliation. The trial court pronounced sentence and signed the judgment in August of 

2011. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until August 3, 2012. We dismiss for 

want of jurisdiction. 

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence is 

imposed or suspended in open court or within ninety days after that date if a motion for 
2 

new trial is filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Therefore, the deadline for perfecting an 

appeal here lapsed in September of 2011. 

A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If it is untimely, we can take 

no action other than to dismiss the proceeding. Id. at 523. Appellant's notice being 

untimely filed, we have no jurisdiction over the matter and dismiss the appeal. 

Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.1

Per Curiam 

Do not publish. 

 1

The appropriate vehicle for seeking a belated appeal from a final felony conviction is by writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005).
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN AIRWAYS, INC. FAA DOCKET CP89NM0483 (Civil Penalty Action)



### ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

# SERVED APR 

### 2 4 1990

On April 13, 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Rules of Practice for FAA Civil Penalty Actions (Civil Penalty Rules), 14 C.F.R. Part 13, (including Subpart G) , promulgated by 53 Federal Register 34646 (Sept. 7, 1988), are invalid, because the FAA failed to comply with notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 

## u.s.c. § 553. Air Transport Association of America v. Department of Transporta

tion, No. 89-1 195, slip op. at 2, 3 (D.C. Cir. April 13, 1990). The Court ruled that the FAA may hold pending civil penalty actions in abeyance and resume prosecution upon the promulgation of a scheme for adjudicating administrative civil penalty actions. Id. at 21. Accordingly, the above-captioned proceeding is stayed until further notice.

Dated: April 23, 1990

# Q,.**Q~~~** Ronnie A. Yoder Administrative Law Ju e
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2427 

To establish a task force to identify countervailable subsidies and dumping. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2018 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To establish a task force to identify countervailable subsidies 

and dumping. 

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 ‘‘Self-Initiation Trade 

5 Enforcement Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TASK FORCE TO IDENTIFY COUNTERVAILABLE SUB7 SIDIES AND DUMPING. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of title VII of the Tar9 iff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677 et seq.) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2427 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 784. TASK FORCE TO IDENTIFY COUNTERVAILABLE 

2 SUBSIDIES AND DUMPING. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is established, in the 

4 International Trade Administration, a task force to be re5 sponsible for— 

6 ‘‘(1) identifying countervailable subsidies and 

7 dumping that are causing material injury or threat8 en to cause material injury to a domestic industry; 

9 ‘‘(2) making recommendations to the Under 

10 Secretary of Commerce for International Trade with 

11 respect to initiating investigations under sections 

12 702(a) and 732(a); and 

13 ‘‘(3) conducting research relating to carrying 

14 out paragraphs (1) and (2). 

15 ‘‘(b) DUTIES.—In carrying out the responsibilities of 

16 the task force under subsection (a), the task force shall— 

17 ‘‘(1) monitor trade flows, government data, 

18 price fluctuations, domestic industry and market 

19 conditions, and all relevant available business infor20 mation to identify potential cases of countervailable 

21 subsidies and dumping that are causing material in22 jury or threaten to cause material injury to a domes23 tic industry; 

24 ‘‘(2) conduct background research on foreign 

25 pricing practices and foreign government subsidies, 

26 including duty evasion and circumvention; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2427 IS

1 ‘‘(3) prioritize cases that affect small and me2 dium-sized businesses in the United States. 

3 ‘‘(c) CONSULTATIONS.—In carrying out the respon4 sibilities of the task force under subsection (a), the task 

5 force shall consult with industries in the United States 

6 with respect to countervailable subsidies and dumping.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

8 for title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by in9 serting after the item relating to section 783 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 784. Task force to identify countervailable subsidies and dumping.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
Santa Rosa, California

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of October 31, 1995 and 1994,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, common stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended October
31, 1995.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.  We did not audit the financial statements of
Flex Products, Inc., who became a consolidated subsidiary effective May 1, 1995
and whose assets represent 19% of consolidated assets at October 31, 1995 and
whose revenues for the period from May 1, 1995 to October 31, 1995 represent 9%
of consolidated revenues for the year ended October 31, 1995.  The financial
statements of Flex Products, Inc. as of and for the ten months ended October 31,
1995, were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and
our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for Flex Products,
Inc., is based solely on the report of such other auditors.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits and the report of the other auditors provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of the other auditors, such
consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and its subsidiaries at
October 31, 1995 and 1994, and the results of their operations and their cash
flows for the each of the three years in the period ended October 31, 1995 in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Francisco, California
December 18, 1995
## Organized Village ofKake P.O. Box316 Kake, Alaska 99830-0316 Telephone 907-785-6471 Fax 907-785-4902/ email KeexKwaan@KakeFirstNation.org (FederallyRecognized Tribal Governmentserving the Kake, Alaska area)

Michael Martin Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. DepartmentofTranspmtation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 June 1, 2012

RE: Essential Air Service Providerfor Kake Alaska DearMr. Martin: At the May 29, 2012 meeting ofthe Organized Village ofKake (OVK) IRA Council, support was formally given to the proposal for Air Excursions LLC under the Essential Air Service (EAS) contract serving our community of Kake Alaska. Representatives of OVK were able to gather information from both carriers proposing to serve Kake, and after weighing multiple factors important to our community,the council feels that AirExcursions best meets the needs ofourcommunity. Given ourrural locationwithout road access, reliable air service is truly essential to ourday-to-day life and the title ofthe EAS program is aptly named and vitally needed. We trust that your office will work with the selected airline offering services under EAS, so thatthey may do so in a mannerthat not only fulfills Kake's needs, but also allows them to operate in a fiscally viable manners - for that to occur, we thank the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Departn1ent ofTransportation for the Essential Air Service Subsidy Programthat is so critical in rural communities such as Kake, Alaska. In closing, we wish to thank your office for its willingness to work with us and to seek community comment onthe Essential Air Service contract award. Ifany additional information orcomments may be needed please advise; and as we move into the future, please keep our tribal government office in the decision process for matters relatedtothis impmtant service. Sincerely,

Gary E. Williams Executive Director
Exhibit 32.0











CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)














Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Sterling Construction Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that,
to his knowledge:








(i)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(ii)
the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

















Dated:           August 10, 2009                             /s/ Patrick T. Manning


Patrick T. Manning


Chief Executive Officer








Dated:           August 10, 2009                             /s/ James H. Allen, Jr.


James H. Allen, Jr.


Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
MORRIS E. TOLIVER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1981

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Morris E. Toliver, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEITH LAMAR GIBSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.

(CR-94-614, CA-97-239-4-12)

Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, RHODES & JOHNSON,

Columbia, South Carolina; Debra Yvonne Chapman, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Lamar Gibson seeks to appeal the district court's order

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

1999). 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 substantially on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Gibson, Nos.

CR-94-614; CA-97-239-4-12 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 1999). With regard to

Gibson's claim that the district court failed to advise him of his

right to appeal, we find that he was not entitled to relief because

the district court informed him of his right to appeal his sentence

during the plea colloquy. See Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S.

23, 24 (1999) (holding that "a district court's failure to advise

the defendant of his right to appeal does not entitle him to habeas

relief if he knew of his right and hence suffered no prejudice from

the omission"). 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
[No. 45164-2-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Mariano Bello, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 99-1-00057-1, David A. Nichols, J., entered September 7, 2000. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

FRANKIE G. BURTON,

Petitioner

v.

INNOVATIVE DTV SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 265 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2553 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit health plans 

and pharmacy benefit managers from restricting pharmacies from informing individuals regarding the prices for certain drugs and biologicals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2018 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mrs. 

MCCASKILL, and Mr. BARRASSO) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

health plans and pharmacy benefit managers from restricting pharmacies from informing individuals regarding the prices for certain drugs and biologicals. 

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 ‘‘Know the Lowest Price 

5 Act of 2018’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2553 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMATION 

2 ON DRUG PRICES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–4 of the Social 

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–104) is amended by add5 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(m) PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMA7 TION ON DRUG PRICES.—A PDP sponsor and a Medicare 

8 Advantage organization shall ensure that— 

9 ‘‘(1) any health benefits plan offered by the 

10 sponsor or organization, including a prescription 

11 drug plan and an MA–PD plan, does not restrict a 

12 pharmacy that dispenses a prescription drug or bio13 logical from informing (or penalize such pharmacy 

14 for informing) an enrollee of any differential be15 tween the price of the drug or biological to the en16 rollee under the plan and the price the individual 

17 would pay for the drug or biological if the enrollee 

18 obtained the drug without using any health insur19 ance coverage; and 

20 ‘‘(2) any entity that provides pharmacy benefits 

21 management services under a contract with any 

22 health benefits plan offered by the sponsor or orga23 nization does not, with respect to such plan or any 

24 health benefits plan that the entity contracts with to 

25 provide pharmacy benefits management services and 

26 that is offered by an entity other than such sponsor 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2553 IS

1 or organization, restrict a pharmacy that dispenses 

2 a prescription drug or biological from informing (or 

3 penalize such pharmacy for informing) an enrollee of 

4 any differential between the price of the drug or bio5 logical to the enrollee under the plan and the price 

6 the individual would pay for the drug or biological 

7 if the enrollee obtained the drug without using any 

8 health insurance coverage.’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning on or 

11 after January 1, 2020. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             SILICON GAMING, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                     --------------------------
                                                      MARCH 31,     MARCH 31,
                                                        1996          1997
                                                     ------------  ------------

Net loss...........................................  $     (2,336) $     (4,662)
                                                     ============  ============
Weighted average common shares outstanding.........         3,309        10,668
Weighted average preferred shares outstanding,
   as if converted.................................           679           --
Common shares, redeemable convertible
   preferred shares and options and warrants to 
   purchase shares of common and redeemable 
   convertible preferred shares granted 
   (using the treasury stock method assuming an 
   initial public offering price of $10.50) 
   since July 31, 1995 included pursuant to 
   Securities and Exchange Commission Rules........         5,014           --
                                                     ------------  -----------
     Weighted average common and
        equivalent shares..........................         9,002        10,668
                                                     ============  ============
     Net loss per share............................  $      (0.26) $      (0.44)
                                                     ============  ============
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10239 S u m m ary C al en da r
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. A L F R E D W IL L IA M B R YA N T , D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 7: 05- C R

- 20- 1
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h e convi ct i on an d sen t en ce of A l f red B ryan tw ere af

f i rm ed by t h i s c ou rt o n F e b r u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 8
. T h e r e is n o a p p e a la b le ju d g m e n t fo rp r o c e e d in gn o w in th is co u r t. H e m a ys e e k a d v ic e fo r o th e rp r o c e e d in g s fr o m h is a tt o r n e yo rfile h is ow n sui tf

or hab eas cor pu s r el i ef pro se. DI S M I S S ED
. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk