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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS GARRETT WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00327-NCT-1)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Garrett Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael 

Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Garrett Watson appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce 

his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude the district court properly found it lacked the 

authority to reduce Watson’s sixty-month sentence, which was the 

statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Munn, 595 

F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that this court 

reviews de novo the district court’s “conclusion on the scope of 

its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2)”); see also Dillon v. 

United States, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690–92 (2010) 

(clarifying that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a resentencing, 

but rather permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds 

established by the Sentencing Commission). Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United 

States v. Watson, No. 1:05–cr–00327-NCT–1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 

2012). Further, we deny Watson’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,641
<SECURITIES>                                    17,659
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,468
<INVENTORY>                                     18,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,871
<PP&E>                                           7,737
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,898
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,943
<SALES>                                         88,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,815
<CGS>                                           51,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,643
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,058)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,404)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,654)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,654)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)
        

</TABLE>
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 31/2006

of 10 March 2006         

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 5 (Commission Directive 2003/32/EC) of Chapter XXX of Annex II to the Agreement:

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2005/50/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 11 March 2006, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

R. WRIGHT            

----

(1)OJ L 130, 29.4.2004, p. 3.

(2)OJ L 210, 12.8.2005, p. 41.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Zoll Medical Corporation of our report dated November 6, 1998 , included in
the 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of Zoll Medical Corporation.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Zoll Medical
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements pertaining to the Zoll Medical Corporation 1992 Stock Option Plan 
(Form S-8 No. 333-68403, Form S-8 No. 33-90764 and Form S-8 No. 33-56244) and 
the Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 333-68401) of our 
report dated November 6, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial 
statements of Zoll Medical Corporation incorporated by reference in its Annual 
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 26, 1998, and our report 
included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement 
schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Zoll Medical Corporation.
 


                                                               Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
December 22, 1998
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release # 02-14

Contact: (703) 808-5050 April 8, 2014

Dr. Darrell Zimbelman Receives 2014 Charyk Award

Dr. Darrell Zimbelman is the recipient of the 2014 Charyk Award. The award was 

presented to Dr. Zimbelman on March 7, at the 57th Annual Goddard Memorial Dinner, 

held at the Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Zimbelman distinguished himself as the program manager responsible for 

delivering two major system acquisitions, worth more than $5 billion, by leading his 

team to overcome nearly insurmountable challenges in the reactivation of the Director 

of National Intelligence’s top priority intelligence program after a two-year hiatus. He 

led his team to build and launch two national security spacecraft, restarting production 

lines that had been dormant for years, and reassembling the program personnel to 

accomplish the most aggressive schedule in over two decades. Dr. Zimbelman delivered 

the first satellite within one month of the originally promised date, and delivered the 

second satellite 10 months early and 14 percent under budget. These new systems are 

providing unprecedented intelligence capabilities to the Intelligence Community, the 

nation’s warfighters, and the President of the United States. Dr. Zimbelman’s distinctive 

accomplishments reflect great credit upon himself, the National Reconnaissance Office, 

and the United States of America. 

The Charyk Award was established in 1999 to annually recognize an individual, in 

or supporting the NRO, who has made an outstanding personal contribution to the 

national intelligence space program. The contribution may be in support of the NRO’s 

mission to meet military operations or national intelligence needs, and may include 

science, engineering, research and development, program management operations, 

and/or support.

-NROThe NRO is a joint Department of Defense-Intelligence Community organization responsible for 

developing, launching, and operating America’s intelligence satellites to meet the national 

security needs of our nation.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection the AnnualReport of Cornell Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Nieser, Chief Financial Officer,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ John R. Nieser                      |   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | John R. Nieser, Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | March 16, 2007                          |   |

 

Note:   The certification the registrant furnishesin this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliabilities of that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filed with the Securities andExchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except asotherwise expressly stated in such filing.

----
#### Manufacturers’ Finance Company, Respondent, vs. Fifrick and wife, Appellants.

For the appellants: *L. M. Nelson*of Marinette.

For the respondent: *Eastman & Rose*of Marinette.

*By the Court.*

Order áffirmed.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-6033 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-019-AD

Helicopter Model: 

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 15 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: This proposed AD is prompted by the determination that placards had not been installed 

according to specifications on newly manufactured helicopters. The proposed actions are 

intended to provide exit procedures during an emergency.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $70

Labor per Helicopter

(4 work hours X $85 for 

inspection)

$340

Other

(Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter 

$410

Total US Fleet Cost $6,150

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: David Hatfield
---

EXHIBIT 11.1

COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

|BEGINNING BALANCE | 23,053,689
|----------------- | ----------

|                 | NO. OF SHARES | CONTRIBUTION TO  | ENDING    
|---------------- | ------------- | ---------------- | ----------
|DATE             | ISSUED        | WEIGHTED AVERAGE | BALANCE   
|                 |               |                  |           
|January 23, 2006 | 1,008,548     | 944,996          | 23,998,685
|February 2, 2006 | 125,000       | 114,040          | 24,112,725
|May 10, 2006     | 120,864       | 77,817           | 24,190,542
|June 7, 2006     | 275,000       | 115,959          | 24,346,501
|August 30, 2006  | 1,549,332     | 522,104          | 24,868,605
|October 23, 2006 | 4,300,000     | 812,877          | 25,681,482

Net Loss for the year
    $
      5,961,692Weighted average shares
    
      25,681,482Net Loss per share
    $
      (0.23
    )


---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1442 

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strike a provision relating 

to the budget neutrality of any renegotiated Standard Reinsurance Agreement. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. BOOKER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strike a provision relating to the budget neutrality of any renegotiated 

Standard Reinsurance Agreement. 

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 ‘‘Exclusion for Deficit 

5 Reduction in Agricultural Subsidies Elimination Act’’ or 

6 the ‘‘ERASE Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1442 IS

1 SEC. 2. RENEGOTIATION OF STANDARD REINSURANCE 

2 AGREEMENT. 

3 Section 508(k)(8) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act 

4 (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(8)) is amended by striking subpara5 graph (F). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Litts and another, Respondents, vs. Morse, Appellant.

*February 21*

March *14, 1911.*

*Real-estate brolcers: Middlemen: Commissions from both parties.*

Brokers who, in procuring a purchaser for land, acted as middlemen only and not as agents of the vendor, are entitled to the agreed commission for such service, even though they were also employed by and received a commission from the purchaser.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Wauke-sha county: MaetiN L. Luece, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Plaintiffs allege that in the fall of 1906 they entered into ■an agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant •agreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $500 commission in the event of their securing a purchaser at a stated price for defendant’s hotel property in the city of Elkhom. The complaint also alleges that the defendant agreed to take in exchange for such property improved or unimproved Western lands; that thereafter plaintiffs secured the Burchard-Hurl-but Land Company as a purchaser, brought the parties together, and a sale resulted. The answer of the defendant was a general denial of the allegations of the complaint. On the trial defendant asked permission to amend his answer so as to set up1 as a defense the fact that plaintiffs were in the employment of the party who purchased defendant’s property and received a commission from such purchaser, and that the plaintiffs acted for the purchaser adversely to the interests of the defendant. The court refused to permit such amendment. Testimony was introduced, however, tending to prove defendant’s contention in this regard. Upon a verdict for the plaintiffs for $500 and costs judgment was entered, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

*JE. T.*Gass, for the appellant.

*J. J,*Ounningham> for the respondents.

*473EaeNes, J.

The defendant contends (1) that the verdict rendered is not supported by the evidence, and (2) that the plaintiffs cannot recover because they acted as the agents of both parties to the transaction.

1. The plaintiff *Francis*testified to the making of the contract, the substance of which is contained in the statement of facts. The defendant denied that such contract was made. On this disputed testimony the jury found for the plaintiffs and its verdict is conclusive in this court.

2. The evidence quite clearly shows that the plaintiffs acted in the capacity of middlemen and not as agents of the defendant. Such being the situation, they were entitled to recover the commission agreed upon. *Tasse v. Kindi, ante,*p. 115, 128 N. W. 972, and cases cited.

*By the Gowrt.*— Judgment affirmed.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1360 

To amend the limitation on liability for passenger rail accidents or incidents 

under section 28103 of title 49, United States Code, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2015 

Mr. NELSON (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the limitation on liability for passenger rail accidents or incidents under section 28103 of title 49, 

United States Code, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACCIDENT LIABILITY. 

4 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 28103 of title 49, 

5 United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking 

8 ‘‘$200,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$500,000,000, 

9 except as provided in paragraph (3)’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1360 IS

1 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(3) Subject to paragraph (4), the liability cap under 

3 paragraph (2) shall be adjusted annually by the Secretary 

4 of Transportation to reflect changes in the Consumer 

5 Price Index-All Urban Consumers. 

6 ‘‘(4) Not later than 2 years after the date of enact7 ment of this paragraph, the Secretary— 

8 ‘‘(A) shall consider whether additional adjust9 ments are needed to the liability cap under para10 graph (2); 

11 ‘‘(B) shall consider whether to establish or ad12 just mandatory coverage for an entity described in 

13 subsection (e)(1)(A); and 

14 ‘‘(C) may promulgate regulations.’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘$200,000,000 

16 per accident or incident’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘$500,000,000 per accident or incident, unless the 

18 Secretary, by regulation, determines that a different 

19 minimum level of financial responsibility is necessary 

20 or sufficient to satisfy claims under this section.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 subsection (a) shall be effective for any passenger rail acci23 dent or incident occurring on or after May 12, 2015. 

24 SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT. 

25 (a) REIMBURSEMENT.— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1360 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transpor2 tation may make a grant to an entity described in 

3 section 28103(e)(1)(A) of title 49, United States 

4 Code, to provide a reasonable reimbursement to off5 set any incremental increase in the cost of insur6 ance, if the Secretary determines that the additional 

7 cost of insurance is a result of the amendments to 

8 that section made by section 1 of this Act. 

9 (2) DETERMINATIONS.—In determining the 

10 amount of a reimbursement under paragraph (1), 

11 the Secretary shall consider such factors as the enti12 ty’s ability to meet the increased costs and impacts 

13 on safety and service. 

14 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

15 authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 

16 to carry out subsection (a). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from condensed
balance sheet and condensed consolidated statements of income and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000888138
<NAME>                        THE DEWOLFE COMPANIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. dollars
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                                6,171
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        18,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     48,301
<PP&E>                                               12,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                        5,622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       63,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                42,138
<BONDS>                                              10,376
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 35
<OTHER-SE>                                           13,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         63,652
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    135,420
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        83,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     45,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       5,834
<INCOME-TAX>                                          2,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   3,233
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          3,233
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.95
        

</TABLE>
USCIB: 5.'J/94 

14 Jtme 1955 

UNITED STATES CCl!MUNICATIONS INTELLIGDICE BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMIT'l'EE 

AGENDA FOR 

Thirty-first (Special) Meeting at 1000 on Thursday, 16 June 1955, 

in Room 2E687, National Defense Building, 

Washington, D.C. 

Mr. H. D. Jones, Chairman 

Date of Initial Subject 

Consideration N\Dllber Subject 

16 June 1955 9.4/ 1. Reorganization of USCIB 

to Accommodate ELINT 

(USCIB 9.4/5) 

Subnitted 't:~ 

CIA Member 

BACKGROUND: National Security Council Intelligence Directive Number 1'7, 

issued on 16 May 1955, designated USCIB as the national policy body f'oJ:o 

EI.INT. On 20 May 1955, USCIB referred to USCIBEC the problem. of adjusi:;-

ment of the USCIB structure to absorb ELINT responsibilities, requesting 

that USCIBEC make recommendations for appropriate USCIB action (see 

USCIB 9.4/6). The CIA member prepared a draft directive (enclosure wi·l;h 

USCIB 9.4/5) to serve as a basis for USCIBEC consideration of the problem. 

The Executive Secretary, disagreeing with cert.ain portions of the proposed 

directive, presented his comments in USCIB 9.4/5. USCIBEC will discuss 

both papers with a view to reaching agreement upon a fi:nn proposal for 

USCIB approval. 

USCIB: 5.'3/94 

24 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 

9-05-2014 ursuantto E.O. 13526