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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4639

DARTY JAMES REED,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(CR-97-448)

Submitted: May 11, 1999

Decided: May 28, 1999

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert C. Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Steven M.

Dettelbach, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,

for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Darty James Reed appeals from his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). We affirm.

Sufficient probable cause existed to support Reed's arrest, and the

district court did not err in denying Reed's motion to suppress. See

United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 540-41 (4th Cir. 1996). Reed

failed to show that disclosure of the confidential informant's identity

would significantly aid his defense, and the district court did not

abuse its discretion in declining to order disclosure. See Roviaro v.

United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 (1957); United States v. D'Anjou,

16 F.3d 604, 609 (4th Cir. 1994). The district court similarly did not

abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on the narcotics

trade, see United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1435 (4th Cir. 1993),

or in declining to give a reasonable doubt jury instruction. See United

States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 1998).

The court's decision not do depart downward from the sentencing

range is not reviewable. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.3d 28,

30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally, the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument did not so prejudicially affect Reed's substantial rights

as to deprive him of a fair trial, and we find no reason to disturb the

court's refusal to order a mistrial. See United States v. Wilson, 135

F.3d 291, 297-302 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1852 (1998).

We affirm Reed's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set

forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT EDWARD TILLERY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00253-BO-1) 

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Andrew A. 

Kasper, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6282 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Edward Tillery appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. After review of the record, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that such release 

was not warranted in light of relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors after balancing those 

factors against Tillery’s arguments. See United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 831, 834 

(4th Cir. 2022) (noting standard of review, conclusions district court must draw to grant 

motion, and guideposts for determining whether court has abused its discretion in 

considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. United 

States v. Tillery, No. 5:01-cr-00253-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2023). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6282 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Opinion issued May 11, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00091-CV

———————————

CHRISTINE E. REULE, Appellant

V.

SHERWOOD VALLEY I COUNCIL OF CO-OWNERS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1087952

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Christine E. Reule, representing that she no longer wishes to 

pursue the appeal, has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). No opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c).
2

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Huddle, and Lloyd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TREX MEDICAL
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 28, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                          30,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,291
<INVENTORY>                                     43,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,642
<PP&E>                                          22,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,608
<BONDS>                                             71
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           289
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,439
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,577
<SALES>                                        171,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,661
<CGS>                                          105,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,312
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,312
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 5761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02026]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental 
Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Notice of 
Charter Renewal

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, 
National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances 
and Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human Services, has been 
renewed for a 2-year period through May 21, 2016.
    For information, contact William Cibulas, Ph.D., Designated Federal 
Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for 
Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 
Department of Health and Human Services, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop 
F61, Chamblee, Georgia 30341, telephone (770) 488-0662 or fax (770) 
488-3385.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-02026 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Gilbert Hu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
AltiGen Communications, Inc.





Date:
      August 12, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Gilbert HuName:
              Gilbert
      HuTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer
# Fence (Ft.) (382) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Fence (Ft.) (382) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Fence (Ft.) (382).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Fence (Ft.) (382) (7/2021) Standard Document(90.03 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

 Fence (Ft.) (382) Overview(524.24 KB)

 Fence (Ft.) (382) CPPE(27.78 KB)

 Fence (Ft.) (382) Network Diagram(90.37 KB)

## Conservation at Work: Fence

This video explores how Paul Lisai of West Glover, VT, is using fencing to manage the cattle on his dairy farm.

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
# C_2004283EN.01000101.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 November 2004

(2004/C 283/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3020 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4306 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70120 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9695 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5153 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,88 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1320 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5784 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,133 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,80 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6805 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4323 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2446 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 39 864 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,80 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,265 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 876 400 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6645 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5660 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1248 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8344 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1450 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 391,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,7954 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3020

JPY

Japanese yen

134,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4306

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70120

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9695

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5153

ISK

Iceland króna

86,88

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1320

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5784

CZK

Czech koruna

31,133

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,80

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6805

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4323

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2446

ROL

Romanian leu

39 864

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,80

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,265

TRL

Turkish lira

1 876 400

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6645

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5660

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1248

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8344

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1450

KRW

South Korean won

1 391,58

ZAR

South African rand

7,7954

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Enforcement Actions: Significant Actions Resolved Individual Actions Semiannual Progress Report July-December 1999 (NUREG-0940)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0940	           - Part 1 (PDF 22.72 MB)
          - Part 2 (PDF 6.98 MB)
          - Part 3 (PDF 10.61 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 2000**Date Published:** June 2000

Office of EnforcementU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during the period (July -December 1999) and includes copies of Orders and Notices of Violation sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to individuals with respect to these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC. The Commission believes this information may be useful to licensees in making employment decisions.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Alexander S. Martin v. Robert Martin.

From Rockingham.

A decree in Equity, directing a Defendant to execute a deed and de liver possession of land, is a breach of a'covenant for quiet enjoyment, and the fact that the decree is founded on notice to him when he purchased, of an equity in the land, does not bar his action.

This was an action brought upon the covenant of quiet enjoyment, contained in a deed of bargain and sale executed fay the Defendant and - another to the Plaintiff, which was as follows *; “*and we the said *Robert-Marlin,*&c. do warrant unto the said *Alexander 8.*Martin, his heirs, &c. the aforesaid land, against the claim or claims of any person whatsoever.”

*414On the tria!, the Plaintiff produced a bill in equity filed by one *Thomas Overton,*against the. Plaintiff and _ „ , , , , , 0 „ , Deteudant, whereby iie prayed a conveyance ot (he same Jan^ 0„ the ground of a prior contract for the sale of it by the present Defendant to him, upon which he had paid a part of the purchase money : and also a decree in that suit by which be (the Plaintiff) was directed to convey the bargained and sold premises, and give possession thereof to *Overton.*It appeared from the Plaintiff’s answer to *Overton’s*bill, and from testimony in this cause, that lie had-full notice of *Overton’s*equity, when he received the deed, which contained the covenant on which this suit was brought.

The Counsel for the Defendant, requested the Judge to instruct the Jury, that if they believed the Plaintiff had notice of *Overton’s*equity, when he purchased, he was only entitled to nominal damages. But his Honor Judge Baniei, refused to give these instructions, on the contrary, he informed the Jury that the decree was equivalent to an eviction under a judgment in ejectment, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for his purchase money, with interest from the time he surrendered ,the possession, in obedience to the decree.

A verdict being returned according to the charge, the Defendant appealed.

No Counsel appeared for either patry in this Court.

Haii., Judge.

It is true in this case, that the Plaintiff had notice of *Overton’s*claim to the land; but the Defendant had a much better knowledge of its nature.— It is not very likely, that if the Plaintiff had a full knowledge of the extent of the claim, he would have laid out his money in the purchase. But if the Defendant, with the knowledge he had, thinks proper to sell the land, warrant the title of it, and receive the purchase money, it is then but just, that when the Plaintiff lost the land, in consequence of the Defendant’s having contracted *415to sell it to Overton, that he should refund the purchase money with interest, as the Judge,, in my opinion, very properly instructed the Jury.

It is true the Defendant conveyed the legal title to the Plaintiff, but he conveyed it subject to *Overton’s*equity, and the decree, by which he lost it, was tantamount to an eviction by process of law. 1 think the rule for a new trial should' be discharged.

Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.
Order entered December 20, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00394-CR

SEDRIC DEJUAN BRAXTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F21-99731-N

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s December 8, 2022 motion to abate this 

appeal, noting that the trial court’s judgment is not on the correct form. The State 

asks the Court to abate this appeal so that the trial court can enter its judgment 

using the correct form, and reflect that appellant’s post-adjudication community

supervision was revoked.

We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER the trial court to hold a 

hearing, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, to determine whether 
the trial court’s April 18, 2022 judgment is incorrect and should be corrected. If the 

trial court determines the judgment is incorrect, the trial court SHALL enter a 

corrected judgment. If necessary, the trial court may (1) review the reporter’s 

record from the June 28, 2021 juvenile transfer hearing and the April 18, 2022,

revocation hearing and (2) make findings of fact. If the trial court enters a 

corrected judgment and/or findings of fact, the court shall cause them to be filed in 

a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date of 

the trial court’s hearing. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Hector 

Garza, Presiding Judge, 195th Judicial District Court; to Velma Loza, official court 

reporter, 195th Judicial District Court; to Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District 

Clerk; and to counsel for all parties. 

We ABATE this appeal so the trial court may hold a hearing. The appeal 

will be reinstated when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed, or the Court deems 

it appropriate to do so.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             822
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,608
<PP&E>                                         601,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,510)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 599,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,720
<BONDS>                                        197,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                     331,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   599,338
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,970
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11.1

     Computation of fully-diluted earnings per share, using
21,931,016 weighted average shares outstanding.

                                                 Amount         Per Share
Net income before extraordinary items           $ 7,433,000      $ .34
Extraordinary items                             (13,105,000)      (.60)
Net loss                                        $(5,672,000)     $(.26)

Calculation of number of weighted average
   fully-diluted shares:

Proceeds from assumed exercise of options       $18,743,125       
Divided by year end closing price of
   common stock                                     $27.625
Equals number of shares assumed purchased
   under treasury stock method                      678,484
Number of shares assumed purchased through
   exercise of options                              930,000
Less number of shares assumed purchased
   under treasury stock method                      678,484
Equals additional shares assumed outstanding
   for fully-diluted earnings per share 
   computation                                      251,516
Plus weighted average number of shares
   outstanding, primary EPS calculation          21,679,500
Equals weighted average number of shares
   outstanding, fully-diluted EPS calculations   21,931,016