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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BLANCHE TRIVETTE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-2795

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-8-5-H)

Submitted: October 31, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dianne Upson, Todd, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Kenneth M. Smith, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Blanche Trivette appeals the magistrate judge's decision* affirming the determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services

(Secretary) that she is not disabled from performing her past relevant

work and therefore not entitled to social security disability benefits.

Trivette argues that the evidence did not support a finding that she

could perform her past relevant work as a housekeeper at Appalachian

State University (ASU). She contends that her duties at ASU constituted medium work, rather than light work, as the Secretary found.

We review the Secretary's final decision to determine whether it is

supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was

applied. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1202 (4th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales,

402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

We find that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision.

Under the sequential evaluation process set forth at 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.920 (1996), the claimant bears the burden of proof and production through the fourth step of that process: determining whether the

claimant is disabled from her past relevant work. Pass, 65 F.3d at

1203. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether Trivette's duties

at ASU constituted light or medium work. She thus did not bear her

evidentiary burden. More importantly, she did not present credible

evidence showing that her physical and mental capabilities deteriorated to the point that she was no longer able to perform her job.

We accordingly affirm the decision of the magistrate judge. We

dispense with oral argument because the materials before us reveal

that argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), the proceedings were

conducted by a magistrate judge with the parties' consent.

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ADVANCE
PARADIGM, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          62,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                       253
<INVENTORY>                                      3,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,740
<PP&E>                                          17,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 169,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   169,429
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               164,182
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (765)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,543
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,726
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,817
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,817
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
#### PEDIGO WEBER SHOE CO. v. HACHAR.

No. 8898.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 26, 1932.

H. G. Dickinson, of Laredo, for plaintiff in error.

Edward A. Mullally, of Laredo, for defendant in error.

PLY, C. J.

This case originated in a court of a justice of the peace, where plaintiff in error, hereinafter designated as plaintiff, sued defendant in error, herein called defendant, on an account for $142.20. Plaintiff failed to recover in the justice’s court, and the cause was appealed to the district court, where it was tried by jury and a verdict was instructed for defendant.

On May 4, 1928, defendant ordered from plaintiff thirty pairs of shoes, and on May 11, one week later, sought to countermand the order through a telegram. Plaintiff refused to recognize the countermand of the order and afterwards shipped the shoes to defendant, who refused to accept them. No complaint was made as to material, quality, or quantity of the shoes. The only reason given for the cancellation of the order was that the market was overstocked with such shoes which were being sold at a less price than defendant could sell the shoes ordered from plaintiff. It was stipulated in the order for the shoes that no countermand could be made after the order had been approved and the material cut for manufacturing the shoes. They were promptly shipped to defendant. He refused to accept them from the express company. There is no testimony showing that plaintiff reclaimed the shoes and regained possession of them after they had been refused by defendant.

The court fo.und in his instructions to the jury, that “it appears from the pleading and the undisputed evidence that they (the shoes) were to be manufactured to fill the order, and that on the 11th day of May the defendant, by telegram, countermanded the order and at the time of the receipt thereof the material for the shoes had been cut but the manufacture had not been completed.” The judgment of the trial judge seems to be based on the assumption that plaintiff took possession of the shoes after their rejection by defendant" and is holding the shoes and suing for their value. The testimony does not bear out the assumption. The testimony left the shoes in the possession of the carrier in Laredo, and if plaintiff rescued possession of the shoes defendant should have proved that fact. He did not prove it. Upon what the court assumed that plaintiff had the property and desired also to recover the full value of it is not disclosed by the record. No such defense was pleaded by defendant. The burden of proof to show the facts assumed by the trial court existed rested on defendant.

According to the pleadings and evidence there were but two issues: Did defendant make the order; and, if so, did he cancel it before plaintiff had executed the order in whole or in part?

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Raycom Media Request for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 to Operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Aerial Data Collection
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

By signing below, the undersigned officer hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her
knowledge, (i) this report 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc.

Signed
this 22nd day of December, 2003

|/s/AMIN J. KHOURYAmin J. Khoury Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc. ("AET") and will be retained by AET and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
|   | Exhibit 21.1 |
|--------|--------------|

 

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 

| Entity                                       | Jurisdiction of Organization | Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business                                                 |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Alaska United Fiber System Partnership       | Alaska                       | Alaska United Fiber System Partnership, Alaska United Fiber System, Alaska United

  |
| GCI Communication Corp.                      | Alaska                       | GCI, GCC, GCICC, GCI Communication Corp.

                                           |
| GCI Cable, Inc.                              | Alaska                       | GCI Cable, GCI Cable, Inc.

                                                         |
| GCI Holdings, Inc.                           | Alaska                       | GCI Holdings, Inc.

                                                                 |
| Potter View Development Co., Inc.            | Alaska                       | Potter View Development Co., Inc.

                                                  |
| GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc.

* * | Alaska                       | GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc., GFCC,  Kanas

                                   |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20513]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12533; No. 2024-07]


Determination Pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State under 
the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), and 
delegated pursuant to Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 
214, dated September 20, 1994, I hereby determine that the 
representative offices and operations in the United States of Ruptly, 
including their real property and personnel, are a foreign mission 
within the meaning of 22 U.S.C. 4302(a)(3).
    Furthermore, I hereby determine it to be reasonably necessary to 
protect the interests of the United States to require the 
representative offices and operations in the United States of Ruptly 
and its agents or employees acting on its behalf, to comply with the 
terms and conditions specified by the Department of State's Office of 
Foreign Missions relating to the above-named entity's activities in the 
United States.

Rebecca E. Gonzales,
Director, Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2024-20513 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4711-11-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Brennan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |                                                
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|August 6, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ John J. Brennan                            
|               |  |  |  | John J. Brennan                                
|               |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer
EX-10.1










Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT TO THE

ASPEN INSURANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED

AMENDED 2003 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN




     WHEREAS, Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited, a Bermuda corporation (the “Company”) has adopted
the Aspen Insurance Holdings Limited Amended 2003 Share Incentive Plan (Amended February 6, 2008)
(the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the [Board of Directors/Committee] has determined that it would be in the best
interests of the Participants to amend the Plan to comply with Section 409A of the United States
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.



     NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:




				
	 	1.	 	Section 10(b) shall be amended by adding the following subsection:





     “(iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10(b)(ii), (A) in the event of a Change in
Control, no payment shall be accelerated for any Award which constitutes “deferred compensation”
under Section 409A of the Code unless such Change in Control is a “change in control event” as
defined in Section 1.409A-3(i)(5) of the United States Treasury Department Regulations and (B) to
the extent that a Change in Control does constitute a “change in control event” as defined in
Section 1.409A-3(i)(5) of the United States Treasury Department Regulations, then, with respect to
any Award which would be considered “deferred compensation” under Section 409A of the Code on the
date of such Change in Control, the restrictions and other conditions applicable to any such Award
shall lapse, and such Award shall become vested, payable in full and immediately settled and
distributed.”




				
	 	2.	 	A new Section 19 shall be added with the title “Section 409A Compliance” and the following
provision:





     “The provisions of this Plan and any Awards made herein are intended to comply with, and
should be interpreted consistent with, the requirements of Section 409A of the Code, and any
related regulations or other effective guidance promulgated thereunder by the United States
Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service.”



     Except as expressly amended herein, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.
EXHIBIT 11

DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.        EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION        (Dollars in thousands, except share data)  (unaudited)

|                                    |  | Basic |            | Diluted |  
|----------------------------------- |  | ----- | ---------- | ------- | -
|
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  
|Weighted average shares outstanding |  |       | 17,970,356 |         |  
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  
|Net loss                            |  | $     | (5,495     | )       | $
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  
|Loss per share                      |  | $     | (0.31      | )       | $
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  
|
|
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  
|Weighted average shares outstanding |  |       | 17,835,283 |         |  
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  
|Net loss                            |  | $     | (2,983     | )       | $
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  
|Loss per share                      |  | $     | (0.17      | )       | $
|                                    |  |       |            |         |  

At
September 30, 2001 and 2002, we had outstanding anti-dilutive commitments under our stock option plans covering 3,644,011 and 4,396,749 shares, respectively. For the three months
ended September 30, 2001 and 2002, 941,088 shares for the effect of the convertible notes were not included in the computations of diluted EPS because the effect of including the convertible
notes would have been anti-dilutive.

---

QuickLinks
ORIGINAL

(Y\A~0£- TflM^s (+>^/H--h

O K

flcPP^l(£<£

110 -/5

REGS ... "< li. • ll EALS

JAN 2 6 2015

, Clerk

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JAN 3 0 2315

Abel Acosta, Clerk

l4&0ofl-Ar4>le. ^u<^e f-^-Oh "TdoiyUS/L^ <^c>rJ>&H- file3 thirty

W-J-'s r^^-rltotO teP- &tsef*strh>A>A/lu &L<J>ieuJ

vbluAS-b. Aft
ST&4~^m^H^r C3P !t.£~ <3A5£r

~TL^ ^utA&Kit^ pne^nMro etas ^fAd^ i^tsu^f^terser

^O Pflocj& ybe. Ae. <L<255 A<Li^ P^CUl/1 i/L/Z<-f /d>55 'ek/K^uT

^S fceguie&o £y 37Wu£v 75 oj<¥\* T~£<^ F+2/z. jHAe-ZeT'

0A-luce. Of=? 7&&. ^^p<snA^f A+ ylaz "TTpos. And A^c^.

72,W^x. ^4/ &Je AMA/, §<£S.O&64)t

TOkJ"^ aF ftfJlofe-lo^O

Th Pduoe. "TlM-TZue- /?AM*f /uAm^) }^ 7t^ Irf&cUtHJT

ZfuU&ttiBAyt op lit: TrfcTEs
AxScd

3&dT /Jo. 078*7//^

Jog %stcHj/hA)iU Srivu&i &*>* 3=cr

"T^W (HollaW fofL App^/MnJ^h

Qcq P^3A/0 *>Y~

P^5l£cp7iyAS 73£o2L
liable OF ^u^lH-oTUr rzr^3

KJmp/i&jl uc 57>/s, 7i£ 5.c*j.'3d 73^ £t£. <*eiM.<A-p/> JLow)ilt U,i<L(

G&/f?i4$ 0< ST&tej 7Ho 5. w> .^J ^3y^/x. 74/5/?. /b&AcjLiKmcf I<?&7,. /ua far)
'-^^pc^lu^3k o:~$i*±€-i1S~I ^oo^d &£7 Aj^4 App, Gsfrpu-S i^\o'}

&Ui*>±l /*?«&, flsL< &*F<3)

GQ T^Supp £<$ $&5~(/Lff}(2/>&& 43V a3c£ 4S)

Aa/0/t7 (&>£

3/,o3
oF App&*/$$.

r^-f/fiotO Foil L^}^>£He.f-'(o/OA-fl^ /&s<j>;t5uJ pufc.5,uAHJ~t To TAG

^>/^/f/ ^^//'c^ ^cdo 7S i/ooy&oa, A ~F&<e-J

F-ifi^T c)&pfl^ fer^/uy JAk&n-f &r^fUc)&l S-^/hAi5/ £

UltCTuJE. &F Tu?e> Pflto/L Hz-fcriY <3z>jOcticf(OAD }^<lLJ&J A3

pUi^S^/Jrz'D'^u? Ajufly o/J Fhs. }s5u*?5 <=>F fci)(p A/vD

Vlte^ fujKisttiH.vKJ' fllu&£ or^TZ^ App&///h<f~/Pk/kJ&Q

CO ctC

5

&*
' A- t-lne' op' ^ "F^cx^ Awe) rcr^iW'/o/u '*s TZ.-*^ A*yiou.i>^t~

XS5oc£r5 Pf2£r5eMJ-Azrp

p
ltoi OF €/LfLo^ ozai&

7^tX^^<if p^^Se^tiJ^D 6^/45 /ez^4/l<f }yt5u_re= ict^uX ~~F^>

Pccfiz^AfiF 7S "T^x. P*A). C^e Aio/O. §Jgt&6(A)<

i^CuiWt CfF= ^PJOjo/2. / cJ o

lhj^€-Oi^^<L.e- p!bes<s^cF>^ u±AS (e^AH* /rCSu.FFiCtcZi^f 7& /y/fcse.

/ess 7Xs?ic $ loc>fe£x*j A* A/l-&s&t> ie^Tk&- //ticJ/c^^

1i
3*W*c^e&?-f oF 7#eT F^Fs>

&A-3& f>^ww mAi^f

5s^>t-/z^-/ fl~){ZrG&vd;ii:GOfi<c} cl*&3 <*/<- 7X-* &°oF c>F 7^e

ILa<lF>2- Si^ppL, %12>as/ /o<z*4ezD >* ~/Zie Cfy &F 6it)<^(<<?5/ <^5<~

£A/2-{y pto/iAJmp /iou.?23 gaj o/e- A-6=>cct ApfalJ-C, iL&SJl.

IZU- ^/L^ ,2^,4-/ iSju&AZ^ot&O dy 7X& p/HL-P^S ATTLajt ST^je.

£*>A6 U>k*-'tL*J2- llu^ (L;Z.tu_t*i~-5+A*~/-?Al AJ>A-(uJlF <7f=- ~fec Z-£>^<?/OcszoFf^&tera ^ay ytvs ^7rf~As u*A-s ScaFFScScr^T- 7© /°£otj*i 4**fb*£>d

A fe~&50/OA£/£r <Jou_4F jiuiJ- App^//mt U>As 7£<° /e£/*z7&F7<>ri.

3tJJOIF}c7A^ t??US^S d^XJCEt^jO'/rtf ~JXe- /^*( *>&FFf^&OcLy

M*U y^/go^Sfe-/O/HZ-Af A^^;^t$T c*J b?s*t 7£^ ^J/fw/^^5-

Pt±Tc^A-i(y oW Occa/2.

e
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>                             0001013148
<NAME>                            XybernautCorporation
       
 <S>                          <C>
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     Jul-01-1998
 <PERIOD-END>                      Sep-30-1998
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-mos
 <CASH>                                    814,266
 <SECURITIES>                                 0
 <RECEIVABLES>                             279,242
 <ALLOWANCES>                               22,513
 <INVENTORY>                               741,469
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                         2,509,616
 <PP&E>                                    982,329
 <DEPRECIATION>                            537,847
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                           3,827,497
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,145,357
 <BONDS>                                      0
 <COMMON>                                  202,085
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
 <PREFERRED>                               273,566
 <OTHER-SE>                               3,351,846
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             3,827,497          
 <SALES>                                   259,043
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                          259,043
 <CGS>                                     794,793
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                             794,793
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                         2,968,163
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                         (3,480,275)
 <INCOME-TAX>                                 0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3,480,275)
 <DISCONTINUED>                               0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
 <CHANGES>                                    0
 <NET-INCOME>                            (3,480,275)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.18)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                              (.18)
         

</TABLE>