alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3120

___________________________

Matthew Todd Watkins

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: June 5, 2019

Filed: June 10, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Matthew Todd Watkins appeals the district court’s1

 affirmance of the

Commissioner’s decision denying him disability insurance benefits (DIB). We find

that the decision denying DIB is supported by substantial evidence on the record as

a whole. See Chesser v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2017) (de novo

review; where it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from evidence and

one of them represents Commissioner’s findings, this court must affirm). Specifically,

we conclude that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) residual functional capacity

(RFC) determination was proper, see Combs v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir.

2017) (ALJ determines RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical

records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own

description of his limitations), in part because the opinion of Watkins’s treating

neurologist that he would miss at least four days of work per month was properly

discounted, see Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (treating

physician’s opinion was properly discounted as conclusory, as it was in checklist

format, cited no medical evidence, and offered little or no elaboration); see also

Gieseke v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2014) (ALJ properly relies on

vocational expert’s testimony when hypothetical question captures concrete

consequences of claimant’s deficiencies). We also conclude that the credibility

findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) were entitled to deference, as they were

supported by valid reasons. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2016)

(where good reasons and substantial evidence support ALJ’s credibility determination,

it is entitled to deference). 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe

J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
ex4_1designation.htm






Exhibit 4.1


 ROSS MILLER


Secretary of State


204 North Carson Street, Suite 1


Carson City, Nevada 89701-4520


(775) 684-5708


Website: www.nvsos.gov












Certificate of Designation


(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.1955)












USE BLACK INK ONLY - DO NOT HIGHLIGHT                                                                                                 ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY


 







Certificate of Designation For


Nevada Profit Corporations


(Pursuant to NRS 78.1955)












1. Name of Corporation:







Alto Group Holdings, Inc.







 

 


2. By resolution of the board of directors pursuant to a provision in the articles of incorporation this certificate establishes the following regarding the voting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions and relative rights of the following class or series of stock.







i.  each share of Series B Preferred Stock shall have 2,000 votes per share andshall be entitled to vote together with holders of common stock on all mattersupon which such common stockholders may vote;







ii.  shares of Series B Preferred Stock shall have no divided, distribution, orliquidation rights and shall not be convertible into shares of common stock.







 

 


3. Effective date of filing: (optional)







4. Signature: (required)







 


/s/ Mark Klok


Signature of Officer


 


Filing Fee: $175.00


 


IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit with the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.


 


This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.                                                                               Nevada Secretary of State Stock Designation


                  Revised:  3-6-09
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Ap pe lla nt,
v. L I SA P APE R, Appellee
. § § § § § § No
. 08 -0 9- 00 06 0- CR

Appea l from the Criminal District Court No. One of El Paso County , Texas (TC#20040D04280)
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pending be fore the C ourt is a motion to di smiss filed by the State pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.2(a) . Findingthat the State has e stablished compliance with t h e requirements of Rule 42.2( a),
we g ra nt t he mot ion

and dis mis s th e a

pp e a l.

GUADA LUPE RI VERA, J ustice April 2, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7547

JAMES C. PLATTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00257-IMK-RWT)

Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. Platts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James C. Platts, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s amended 

recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 

petition. Parties in a civil action in which the United States 

or an officer or agency of the federal government is a party are 

accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s 

final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a 

civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Because Platts is incarcerated, the notice of appeal 

is considered filed on the date it was properly delivered to 

prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The record 

does not conclusively reveal when Platts delivered the notice of 

appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand 

the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court 

to obtain this information from the parties and to determine 

whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and 

Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

 Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v. OSHRC Docket No. 08-1774

ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES, INC., 

Respondent.

BRIEFING NOTICE

The parties are requested to brief all issues presented in the Complainant’s Petition for 

Discretionary Review and Respondent’s Statement in Opposition to the Petition for 

Discretionary Review. In particular, the parties are asked to address whether the judge erred in 

vacating Repeat Citation 1, Item 2b instances (b) and (c) and Item 8, which allege violations of 

29 C.F.R. § 1910.146(d)(3) (permit-required confined space program) and 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1910.147(c)(4)(ii) (energy control procedure), respectively. The parties are also asked to

discuss the characterization of these items. 

The parties are advised that when the merits or characterization of an item are before the 

Commission for review, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review. 

Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty if they so choose.

All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1 The first brief is to be 

filed within 40 days of this notice. A party who does not intend to file a brief must notify the 

Commission in writing setting forth the reason therefor within the applicable time for filing 

 

1

 The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with 

references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand 

margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The 

Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, case law, law journal 

articles and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. Parties 

should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate.
2

briefs, and shall serve a copy on all other parties. The time for filing briefs (or similar notices of 

intent) of opposing parties shall commence on the date of service.

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION

Dated: October 16, 2012 _/s/______________________________

John X. Cerveny

Deputy Executive Secretary
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23664]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. 12-1]

Telephonic Prehearing Conference Cancellation

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Cancellation of Telephonic prehearing conference.

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

SUMMARY: Cancellation of Telephonic prehearing conference on September 
25, 2012, in the matter of Maxfield and Oberton Holdings, LLC, CPSC 
Docket 12-1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katy J.L. Duke, Esq., U.S. Coast Guard 
ALJ Program, 504/671-2213.

    Dated: September 21, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23664 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Commission Monthly Case Activity for April 2013

1. Cases Pending Beginning of Month 30

2. Cases Added to Docket 

Cranesville Aggregate Companies, Inc., d/b/a Scotia Bag Plant; and 

Cranesville Block Company, Inc.

No. 09-2011

Direction for Review on 4/25/13

Cranesville Aggregate Companies, Inc., d/b/a Scotia Bag Plant; and 

Cranesville Block Company, Inc.

No. 09-2055

Direction for Review on 4/25/13

Cranesville Aggregate Companies, Inc., d/b/a Scotia Bag Plant; and 

Cranesville Block Company, Inc.

No. 10-0447

Direction for Review on 4/25/13

S.J. Louis Construction of Texas

No. 12-1045

Direction for Review on 4/25/13

4

3. Cases Subtracted From Docket

Otis Elevator Company

No. 09-1278

Decision on 4/8/13

Monroe Drywall Construction, Inc. 

No. 12-0379

Decision and Remand on 4/19/13

Cranesville Block Company, Inc.

No. 10-0447

Order on 4/26/13

-3

4. Total Cases Pending End of Month 31
## A PPENDIX C

UAS #1: DJI

– INSPIRE 1

See Appendix D for manual



### UAS#2: CINESTA R 8

See Appendix e for manual *

*CineStar 8 is a customizable platform. We have included the manufacturer ’ s build m anual for

insight into the components. The UAS complies with all restrictions placed in this petition

### UAS# 3: DJI Phantom 3

S ee Appendix F for manual



### UAS#4: DJI

- S

- 1000

See Appendix G for manual

### UAS #5: DJI

– S9 00

See Appendix H for manual

UAS #6 : DJI

– S 8 00

See Appendix I for manual
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 194 (Saturday, January 3, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H10979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                  January 3, 2009.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Michael R. McNulty to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                     Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for February 2013



1.
Cases Pending Beginning of Month 
32




2.
Cases Added to Docket 



0

3.
Cases Subtracted From Docket

Permabond Construction, Inc.
No. 12-0993
Remand Order on 2/11/13


-1
4.
Total Cases Pending End of Month
31
Exhibit
10.5


 


	
   

  	
  July 27, 2010

  



 


Mr. Frank G. Vitrano


Senior Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and


Chief Administrative Officer


Rite Aid Corporation


30 Hunter Lane


Camp Hill, PA  17011


 


RE:                              Agreement dated as of September 24, 2008 (the “Agreement”)
by and between Rite Aid Corporation (the “Company”) and Frank G. Vitrano (the “Executive”)


 


Dear
Frank:


 


On June 21, 2010, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved
changes to the above referenced Agreement that: 
(i) delete the term “$200,000” in the first sentence of Section 4.6
of the Agreement and replace it with the phrase “$67,000 per year”; and (ii) delete
the phrase “for a period of up to thirty-six (36) months from the Effective
Date” in the first sentence of Section 4.6 of the Agreement.  The balance of Section 4.6 remains
unchanged.


 


If you are in agreement with these
two changes in the above paragraph, please sign both copies of this letter
below where indicated, returning one copy to me and retaining one copy for your
records.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rite Aid Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ MARC A. STRASSLER

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Marc A. Strassler

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Exec. Vice President &
  General Counsel

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ FRANK G. VITRANO

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Frank G. Vitrano

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  July 27, 2010
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND 

MISSOURI 

COMMITTEES: 

APPROPRIATIONS 

SMALL BUSINESS "BUM ^tatCS ^1^11 

ENVIRONMENT AND " " ' " ' -' ":" ' "'"" " 

PUBLIC WORKS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2503 

INTELLIGENCE 

June 1,2010 \ • '"' 

Dennis DeVany, Chief 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

It has been brought to my attention that the US Department of Transportation recently 

received several proposals from different airlines to provide Essential Air Service to the 

Kirksville Regional Airport. 

The City of Kirksville and members of the community have carefully weighed each 

option and the impact each proposal will have on the Kirksville community. In doing so, they 

have selected a proposal that will best service the surrounding community by providing several 

daily flights to a larger airport on a schedule that will allow for the success of the airline. 

Please give the Kirksville City Council recommendation full and favorable consideration 

when reviewing Essential Air Service for the community. 

Cnrisfopher S. Bond
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.

# DATES:

*Date of notice:*                         November 13, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 50 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                           ( print page 89663)    *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-288 and K2025-286.                

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler,

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2024-26265 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### State ex rel. Sullivan, Petitioner and Respondent, vs. Benson, Sheriff, and others, Appellants.

*February 8*

March *7, 1933.*

*48For the appellants there was a brief by *William A. Zabel,*district attorney of Milwaukee county, and *Oliver L. O’Boyle,*corporation counsel, and oral argument by *Clark J. A. Hazelwood,*assistant corporation counsel.

*Joseph A. Padway*and *Walter Schins, Jr.,*both of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

*49Fairchild, J.

There are limitations upon the powers of the Civil Service Commission. Its duties are fixed by statute. In order to remove one who is under the civil service rule from office there must be complaint in writing and notice to the person affected, opportunity for a hearing, and then a hearing and a decision. The statute requiring the commission to appoint a time and place for the hearing of charges provides that at the termination of the hearing the commission shall decide whether or not the charges are well founded and take such action by way of suspension, demotion, discharge, or reinstatement as to them may seem requisite and proper under the circumstances. This interpretation of the statute appears in rule 7, sec. 3, Civil Service Rules:

> “At the termination of the hearing, the commission or the investigating officer or board appointed by the commission to conduct such hearing shall make return of the findings, . . . and when such findings . . . are approved by the said commission, the decision of the commission shall be final and shall be certified to the appointing authority and be forthwith enforced by him.”

The learned trial judge was of the opinion that any and all the provisions in the decision of August 3, 1931, “delegating or attempting to delegate the power of reinstatement of said petitioner to the defendant Benson (sheriff of Milwaukee county), or providing for further action in said matter by said Civil Service Commission at a later date in the event said Benson, sheriff, should elect to refuse or withhold any recommendation, are wholly void and without legal effect as giving said Civil Service Commission any further power to act in said matter.”

The good faith of the commission is not questioned and the purpose of their phrasing their order as they did may readily be understood as an effort for the good of the service; but the commission had no authority to delegate to an *50individual the power which was attempted to be given in this instance to the sheriff. The authority to dismiss has been transferred to the commission by the legislature and the commission cannot place it elsewhere. A void provision was incorporated in an otherwise valid order. The period of suspension properly fixed by the commission is past, the punishment it inflicted has been accepted. The question now presented goes only to the proceedings which are^ based on a void provision. It is conceded that the proceedings subsequent to the suspension and the attempted discharge of the petitioner are based on the void provision. They therefore have no force or efficacy and, being without foundation on which to rest, must fall. *Wacker v.*Wacker, 199 Wis. 197, 225 N. W. 749.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 15, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 624 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-270, K2025-268.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-26555 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P