alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7436** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WALTER DEOTIS FOSTER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 4:04

- cr - 01039

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : March 2 6 , 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. W. James Hoffmeyer, LAW OFFICE OF W. JAMES HOFFMEYER, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Colum bia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Walter Deotis Foster pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and the court sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court correctly classified Foster as a career offender pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 4B1.1(a) (2004). Foster was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We affirm. We review Foster’s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard. Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable if, among other requirements, the court properly calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. See id. at 49

- 51. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err by classifying Foster as a career offender. Even absent consideration of his failure to stop for a blue light conviction, Foster had three prior convictions for felony drug offenses and one prior conviction for a crime of violence. See USSG § 4B1.1(a) (requiring defendant have “at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence3 or a controlled s ubstance offense” to qualify as career offender). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel i nform Foster, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Foster requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court fo r leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Foster. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
# U.S. Navy News Feed

News from U.S Navy.

- DON Insider Threat Awareness Month 2023 PENTAGON -- September kicks off National Insider Threat Awareness Month (NITAM). The Department of the Navy (DON) is working with the Department of Defense (DoD), the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and other agencies to ensure every member of the Marine Corps and Navy are educated on insider risk indicators, bystander engagement and how to report concerns.
Consent of Adam Coulson
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada” effective date January 16, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Adam Coulson”Name:
Adam Coulson, Ph.D., P.Eng.Title:
Rock Engineering Group Manager

Senior Associate Rock Mechanics Engineer
#### Marvin RIDEOUT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6382

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Decided: September 8, 2017

Marvin Rideout, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Rideout seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-*181pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that' the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rideout has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rideout’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
mnkd-ex1015_871.htm



Exhibit 10.15

Non-employee Director Compensation

Adopted November 17, 2017

Modified November 14, 2018

 


		
	
Element
	
Amount

	
Annual Cash Retainer
	
$50,000 (cash)

 

In lieu of cash, a director can elect to receive a RSU valued at $50,000 on the basis of the 20-day trailing average closing price as of the trading day immediately preceding the date of the annual meeting

 

	
Annual Equity Grant
	
Intended equity value:  $150,000

 

(The number of shares for this equity award will be determined using the then-current guideline price for employee equity awards.)

 

	
Equity Vehicles
	
100% RSU

 

(RSUs vest immediately, but shares will not be distributed until the director leaves the board.)

 

	
Initial Equity Grant
	
None

 

	
Independent Chairman Premium 
	
$32,500 (cash)

 

	
Committee Member Compensation
	
Audit:  $10,000

 

Compensation:  $7,500

 

Nominating/Governance:  $5,000 

 

(cash)

 

	
Committee Chair Premiums
	
Audit:  $15,000

 

Comp:  $12,500

 

Nominating/Governance:  $5,000

 

(cash)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         241,487
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,594,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,835,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,757,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,835,800
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,436
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               80,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                158,558
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            158,558
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,558
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .08
        


</TABLE>
Isaiah COOPER, DOC #R25004, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2909

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Juan Javier ROMO-JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2969

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 36



Consent of Norwest Corporation



We consent to the inclusion in this annual
report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references
to our name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report
on Feasibility Study for the Blackwater Project”, dated January 22, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New
Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2014 and we consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in
the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.



Dated this 27th day of March, 2015



|Norwest
    Corporation |                       
|----------------------- | ----------------------
|                        |                       
|                        |                       
|/s/ Sean Ennis          |                       
|By:                     | Sean Ennis            
|Title                   | Vice President, Mining
# Enterprise Products ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS HOLDINGS LLC
April 22, 2014

Wren Stenger DirectorMultimedia, Planning and Permitting Division US Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 (General Partner)

Re: GHG PSD PermitReview ofPDHApplication Propane DehydrogenationUnit (PDH) MontBelvieu, Chambers County Enterprise Products Operating LLC
Dear Ms. Stenger: Federal Express



# .....**~** 

# """ 

# ..., :;;o N w
-o :l!: CD 0 c.:>
Enterprise Products Operating LLC (Enterprise) is submitting this response to the letter ofMarch 27, 2014 asking which agency Enterprise would prefer to authorize the GHG Permit. Since the EPA has been the lead agency on review of this permit and all public notices have been completed, Enterprise would like to retain EPA as the permitting authority on this project and proceed with the project.
Thank you for your work on this project to date. Enterprise looks forward to further work with the EPA onthis and other GHGprojects pending.
Should you have questions, please contact me or Mr. Edwin Bergmann ofmy staffat (713) 381- 6629 or (713) 381-5807, respectively.
Yours truly,

# ~g Rodney M. Sartor Sr. Enviromnental Permitting Manager
/sjn Attachments cc: Air Section Manager, TCEQ Region 12, Certified# Robert Todd, EPA Region 6 JeffRobinson EPA Region 6**)">;-~** -.,.cJ :::Drn 

# -ug**~~** J>< :z.fTl 

### z-o z I C.") en (/)\I,l 

### mCJ 

### o'

P. 0. BOX 4324 HOUSTON, TX 77210-4324 713.381.6500 1100 LOUISIANASTREET HOUSTON, TX77002·5227 www.enterpriseproducts.com
Karim KELEMAN, Appellant, v. Catalina PULECIO, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3379

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Kevin SNODGRASS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.L. MESSER; M.L. Counts, Inmate Hearing Officer at ROSP; C. Bishop, C/O at ROSP; E.R. Barksdale, Warden at ROSP; J. Bentley, Investigator at ROSP; Joe Fannin, Lieutenant at ROSP; Tori Raiford, Unit Manager at ROSP; Garry A. Adams, Lieutenant at ROSP; Harold Clark, Director of VA. DOC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6360

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER. CURIAM:

Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the rea*158sons stated by the district court. *Snodgrass v. Messer,*No. 7:16-cv-00050-EKD-RSB, 2017 WL 975992 (W.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not hid the decisional process,

*AFFIRMED*
2009 Base Salaries, 2009 Target Incentive Opportunity Percentages



 EXHIBIT 10.66 
 2009 Base Salaries, 2009 Target Incentive Opportunity 
 Percentages and 2009 Equity Awards for Named
Executive Officers 
  

										
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	2009
Base
Salary	  	2009
Target
Incentive Award
Opportunity
(% of base salary)	 	2009
Equity Awards
	  	  	 	Stock
Options
(#)	  	Performance
Units
(#)
	 Myron E. Ullman, III
 Chairman and Chief Executive
 Officer
	  	$	1,500,000	  	125%	 	255,183	  	149,161
	 Robert B. Cavanaugh
 Executive Vice President,
 Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	700,000	  	  75%	 	115,630	  	N/A
	 Ken C. Hicks
 President and
 Chief Merchandising Officer
	  	$	900,000	  	100%	 	264,354	  	N/A
	 Michael T. Theilmann
 Executive Vice President,
 Chief Human Resources and
 Administration Officer
	  	$	600,000	  	  75%	 	100,877	  	N/A
	 Thomas M. Nealon
 Executive Vice President,
 Chief Information Officer
	  	$	525,000	  	  50%	 	59,809	  	N/A
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.18
DANAHER CORPORATION
DESCRIPTION OF NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
Following is a description of the Company’s non-management director compensation structure as of January 1, 2019:
	
		
	Compensation structure for non-management directors

	Annual cash retainer
	$120,000 

	Annual equity award
	$180,000 

	Committee chair annual cash retainer (Compensation, Nominating and Governance, Science and Technology)
	$20,000 

	Committee chair annual cash retainer (Audit)
	$25,000 

	Lead Independent Director annual cash retainer
	$30,000 

	Per meeting cash fee for each Board/committee meeting a director attends in excess of twenty during a calendar year
	$2,000




Director cash retainers are paid quarterly in arrears.  Director annual equity awards are divided equally between options and restricted stock units (RSUs). The options are fully vested as of the grant date. The RSUs vest upon the earlier of (1) the first anniversary of the grant date, or (2) the date of, and immediately prior to, the next annual meeting of Danaher’s shareholders following the grant date, but the underlying shares are not issued until the earlier of the director’s death or the first day of the seventh month following the director’s retirement from the Board.  Danaher also reimburses directors for Danaher-related out-of-pocket expenses, including travel expenses.
Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement Form
S-8  No.  33-20815  pertaining  to the  1987  Nonqualified  Stock  Option  Plan,
Registration   Statement  Form  S-8  No.   33-881100   pertaining  to  the  1993
Non-Employee  Directors Stock Option Plan,  Registration  Statement Form S-8 No.
33-81124 pertaining to the 1991 Long-Term Incentive Plan, Registration Statement
Form S-8 No.  333-88744  pertaining to the 2000  Employee  Stock Option Plan and
Registration  Statement Form S-8 No.  333-43631  pertaining to the  Non-Employee
Directors  Deferred  Compensation  Plan, of our report dated March 19, 2004 with
respect to the consolidated  financial statements and schedule of Almost Family,
Inc.  and  subsidiaries  included in the Annual  Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2003.

                                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Louisville, Kentucky
March 19, 2004
Elijah M. CHATMAN, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4505

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Consolidated
Financial Statements of The BISYS Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year
ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          79,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,673
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,001
<PP&E>                                          59,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,360
<BONDS>                                          1,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           505
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   265,085
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               318,988
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,494
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,167
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,751
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,751
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.63<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55<F1>
<FN>
We have calculated earnings per share amounts in accordance with FAS 128
"Earnings Per Share". We have entered basic and diluted amounts in place of
primary and fully diluted, respectively.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 

11, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00525-CV

IN RE MATT GUERRE, D.D.S., 1220 AUGUSTA DENTAL 

MANAGEMENT, LLC D/B/A COSMETIC DENTAL ASSOCIATES, AND 

SPIKER DAVIS, D.D.S., Relators 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

270th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-43848 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On July 2, 2019, relators Matt Guerre, D.D.S., 1220 Augusta Dental 

Management, LLC d/b/a Cosmetic Dental Associates, and Spiker Davis, D.D.S. filed 

a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; 
2 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the 

Honorable Dedra Davis, presiding judge of the 270th District Court of Harris 

County, to set aside her May 28, 2019 orders granting the motion for sanctions and 

the motion to compel filed by real party in interest. Relators also filed an emergency 

motion for temporary relief.

Relators have not presented a sufficient record to establish their entitlement 

to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion 

for temporary relief without prejudice. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
Belafonte Lopez ROSIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with this quarterly report of Nanophase Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), we, Joseph E. Cross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jess A. Jankowski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



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 result of operations of the Company.



Date: May 9, 2005



/s/ JOSEPH E. CROSSJoseph E. CrossChief Executive Officer/s/ JESS A. JANKOWSKIJess A. JankowskiChief Financial Officer
1

The Honorable Henry Edward Autrey, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3958

___________

Ollie M. Hollman, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Thomas L. Nellums, Sr., Owner, Tee *

and E Trucking/Tee and E Trucking, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Inc., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 28, 2010

Filed: February 2, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ollie M. Hollman appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her employment-discrimination suit against her former employer. Having

carefully reviewed the record and considered Hollman’s arguments, we find no basis

for reversal. See Gordon v. Shafer Contracting Co., 469 F.3d 1191, 1194 (8th Cir.
-2-

2006) (de novo standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the parties’ pending

motions and affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________