alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Elmer GROSS, Jr., a/k/a Man, a/k/a Grip, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7701

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: June 1, 2017

James Elmer Gross, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Elmer Gross, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” *United States v. Muldrow,*844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). After reviewing the transcript from Gross’ resentencing hearing, we conclude that the district court attributed to Gross one kilogram of heroin and five kilograms of cocaine and applied six levels of enhancements. *See United States v. Gross,*199 Fed.Appx. 219, 241 (4th Cir. 2006). Applying Amendment 782 and the other enhancements used at resen-tencing, Gross’ new Guidelines range is 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts of conviction. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(c)(5), 2E1.1(c)(2), ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table) (2014). Because the district court varied downward and sentenced Gross to 180 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts, Gross is not eligible for a sentencing reduction. *See*USSG § 1B1.10(b)(l), p.s. & cmt. n.1(A).

Accordingly, we deny Gross’ motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. 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*
T.M.H. v. H.B. and J.B.

2151013

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mason WASHINGTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Gulf coast UAS <info@gulfcoastuas.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 5:26 PM

To: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Cc: Ngo, Dan (FAA); 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Subject: Re: Correction: Gulf Coast Unmanned Aerial Services, Inc. (FAA-2014-1025)

Ms Daniels,

Thank you very much, please consider this email the amendment withdrawal.

Best Regards,

Clayton Mounger

Info@gulfcoastuas.com

225‐324‐4449

  

On Jun 11, 2015, at 3:18 PM, <Nia.Daniels@faa.gov> <Nia.Daniels@faa.gov> wrote:

Mr. Mounger,  

  

Attached is a corrected copy of your granted exemption. This authorizes you to do agricultural and

industrial inspections, with updated conditions and limitations.

  

This should satisfy your amendment request. As such, please withdraw your amendment from the

docket. You can do so by replying to this email.

  

Thank you,  

  

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov

  

<Gulf Coast Unmanned Aerial Services LLC - 11301 - CORRECTION.PDF> 

<FAA-2014-1024-333E Gulf Coast Unmanned Aerial Services, LLC Small UAS Op....pdf>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6913
JEFFREY SCOTT CLEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL D. MURPHY, Dr., Defendant - Appellee, and DAVID M. HINDS, PA; JAMIE REID; PAULA SMITH, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-752-5-H) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Scott Clegg, Appellant Pro Se. Renee Billings Crawford, CRAWFORD LAW OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Scott Clegg appeals the district court’s order setting aside a default judgment against one of the named defendants and denying Clegg’s discovery motions. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Clegg seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Clegg’s “motion for clarification” and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00355-CR

Alejandro Duran Chavez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. CR-0991-19-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered these causes on 

appeal, concludes the appeals should be dismissed. The Court orders these appeals 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 25, 2022
Exhibit 10.73


 





	 	17672 N. Laurel Park Drive
	 	Suite 400 E
	 	Livonia, MI  48152


 


February 27, 2018


 


Mark R. Flynn


17672 Laurel Park Drive N.


Livonia, MI 48152


 


Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement With Respect to Vesting
of LTI Awards


 


Dear Mark,


 


Reference is made to the Employment Agreement,
dated as of November 7, 2017, between you and Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC (the “Employment Agreement”).


 


This is to confirm that, effective the
date hereof, Section 4.6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety, to read as follows:


 


“4.6           Accelerated
Vesting of Equity and LTI Awards. Notwithstanding anything in the 2010 Plan or any award agreement issued thereunder to the
contrary, all then outstanding awards granted to the Employee pursuant to the 2010 Plan, including equity-based awards and performance
awards (payable in cash and/or stock) (the “2010 Plan Awards”), shall immediately become fully vested upon the consummation
of a Change in Control (as defined below) (assuming, in the case of each performance award, target level performance for the entire
performance period (without proration of the amount payable thereto). For purposes of this Agreement, “Change in Control”
shall be defined as set forth in Section 2.6 of the 2010 Plan on the Effective Date of this Agreement.”


 


Except as provided by this letter, the
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Please acknowledge your agreement with
the foregoing by countersigning this letter below and returning it to me.


 


Regards,


 


	/s/ James C. Gouin	 
	James C. Gouin	 
	Chief Executive Officer	 


 


Acknowledged and agreed:


 


	/s/ Mark R. Flynn	 
	Mark R. Flynn	 


 


Date: February 27, 2018
#### William F. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAN, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15818

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 23, 2017 * Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed March 03, 2017

Charles Harry Brower, Esquire, Attorney, Charles H. Brower, AAL, ALC, Honolulu, HI, Michael P. Healy, Esquire, Attorney, Michael P. Healy, Esq., Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Samuel P. King, Jr., Attorney, King and King, Attorneys at Law, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-appellant Nan, Inc. (“Nan”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing plaintiff-appellee William Armstrong’s (“Armstrong”) state law age discrimination claim without prejudice. We affirm.

Before Armstrong’s federal age discrimination claims went to trial, the district court exercised its discretion to dismiss his pendant state law age discrimination claim without prejudice. The court concluded that because of the divergence of elements and remedies available under federal versus Hawaii state law, state law remedies would predominate and there was a substantial risk of jury confusion in evaluating and applying the divergent law to the two age discrimination claims. Because this was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), (4); *Cancellier v. Federated Dep’t Stores,*672 F.2d 1312, 1318 (9th Cir. 1982).

To the extent Nan argues Armstrong should be precluded from seeking punitive damages or pain and suffering damages in state court because he failed to develop such a claim in federal court, that is an issue for the state court to address in the first instance should Armstrong elect to refile in state court, and we express no opinion on the merits of this argument.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 21.1
 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationResources Connection LLC
    
    DelawareNames under which ResourcesConnection LLC does business:Resources Global ProfessionalsResources Connection LLCRe:sources Connection LLCRCTC LLCRCTCResources Connection LLC of DelawareResources Connection LLC DBA RCTCResources Connection LLC, a limited liability company of DelawareRC Management Group, LLC
    
    DelawareRCG, LP
    
    TexasRECN of Texas, LP
    
    TexasNames under which RECN of Texas LP does business:Resources Global Professionals LPResources Audit Solutions, LLC
    
    DelawareRC Holdings I, LLC
    
    DelawareRC Holdings II, LLC
    
    DelawareRGP Property LLC
    
    DelawareResources Connection Australia Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaNames under which Resources Connection Australia Pty Ltd. does
business:Resources Global ProfessionalsResources Global Professionals (Belgium) NV
    
    BelgiumResources Global Professionals, Inc. (Canada)
    
    CanadaResources Global Enterprise Consulting (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaResources Global Enterprise Consulting (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Shanghai
Branch CompanyPeoples Republic of ChinaResources Global Professionals (HK) Limited
    
    Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of ChinaResources Global Professionals (Denmark) AS
    
    DenmarkResources Global Professionals (France) SAS
    
    FranceResources Global Professionals (Germany) GmbH
    
    Germany




---



##### 



Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationResources Global Professionals (India) Private Ltd.
    
    IndiaResources Global Professionals (Ireland)
    
    IrelandResources Global Professionals (Italy) SRL
    
    ItalyResources Global Professionals Japan K.K.
    
    JapanResources Global Professionals (Luxembourg) SA
    
    LuxembourgResources Management Mexico S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoResources Connection Mexico S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoDomenica B.V.
    
    NetherlandsDomenica Holding B.V.
    
    NetherlandsLimbus consulting B.V.
    
    NetherlandsLimbus Holding B.V.
    
    NetherlandsLimbus interim management B.V.
    
    NetherlandsResources Global Professionals (Europe) BV
    
    NetherlandsResources Global Professionals Holdings BV
    
    NetherlandsResources Management & Finance b.v.
    
    NetherlandsResources Projects b.v.
    
    NetherlandsResources Global Professionals (Norway) AS
    
    NorwayResources Global Professionals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeKompetensslussen X-tern Personalfunktion AB
    
    SwedenResources Global Professionals Sweden AB
    
    SwedenResources Connection Taiwan Ltd.
    
    TaiwanCompliance Consultants Services Ltd
    
    United KingdomCompliance.co.uk Ltd
    
    United KingdomFinancial Services Training Ltd
    
    United KingdomResources Compliance (UK) Ltd
    
    United KingdomResources Connection (UK) Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom (England and Wales)Names under which Resources Connection (UK) Ltd. does business:Resources Global Professionals (UK)
January 13, 2016

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket

No. FAA

− 2015

− 5432). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s) , and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operati on. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload) and power source (i.e. battery/gas/propanepowered). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 1/27/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–2999.

Sincerely,

/S/ Program Analyst
EX PARTE Jeffery HARRIS

CR-16-0645

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
D Sr 4 

## I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

## SEP 30 2014 The Honorable Ruben Barrios, Chairperson Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, California 93245 Dear Chairperson Barrios: Pursuantto Executive Order 13175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, I would like to invite the Santa Rosa RancheriaTachi Yokut Tribe to engage in government-togovernment consultation on action EPA is considering to reclassifiy the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area from Moderate nonattainmentto Serious nonattainmentfortwo National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2

. 5 ). The San Joaquin Valley is currently classified Moderate nonattainmentfortwo PM 2

. 5 NAAQS established in 1997 and 2006. EPA is evaluating airquality and modeling analyses regarding the ability ofthe San Joaquin Valley to attain the 1997 and the 2006 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates for each standard. Consistentwith these evaluations. EPA is also considering action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley as Serious nonattainment forthe 1997 and 2006 PM 25 NAAQS. These reclassification actions would establish new attainment dates and outline new air quality planning requirements. These reclassifications would also lowerthe applicable “major source” thresholds forthe purposes ofthe nonattainment new source review program and the Title V operating permitprogram from its current level of 100 tons peryear (tpy) to 70 tpy, potentially subjecting more stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassifications may also lowerthe de minimis threshold forthe Clean AirAct’s General Conformity requirement from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Underthe General Conformity requirement, Federal agencies bearthe responsibility ofdetermining conformity ofactions in nonattainment and maintenance areas thatrequire Federal permits, approvals, orfunding. To ensure thatthe interests and concerns ofthe Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe are considered, I would like to invite you oryour designated consultation representative to engage in government-togovernment consultation with EPA. To request further information, orto initiate consultation, please have your staffcontact Mr. Kerry Drake, Associate Director, Air Division. at (415) 947-4157 orby electronic mail at drake.kerryepa.gov. Ifyou desire government-to-government consultation with EPA, we respectfully requestthat you notify us by October 27, 2014. Thankyou and I look forwardto receiving your input. Sincerely,

bcborahJordan/ Director, Air Division
cc: Janice Cuara, Tribal Administrator

P,i,ited On Rt’(v(lI’j f’acr
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORP., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. James CARR and Betty Carr, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2562

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Samuel RIVERA and Adelaida Rivera, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.

Cancelled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
30, 1997 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,088
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,338<F1>
<PP&E>                                          31,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,770<F2>
<BONDS>                                         21,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,316
<SALES>                                         46,534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,534
<CGS>                                           15,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,797
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 620
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                       700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,101
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
<FN>
<F1>15.) Current assets include $348 of assets held for sale.
<F2>19.) Current liabilities include $4,234 of liabilities related to assets 
         held for sale.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to March 23, 2021 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### A

- 20

- 658 Stat e v. Lopez

- Tejeda

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.**

**SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that:

 

(1)                                 This Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q of Option Care, Inc. for the period ended September 30,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                 The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Option Care, Inc.

 

 
| Date:  November 13, 2002 | By:    | /s/ Paul Mastrapa                                  |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Paul  Mastrapa                                     |   |
|                          |   | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6255 

To require the Secretary of State to report an assessment of the Conflict 

and Stabilization Operations Bureau, including whether the Bureau 

should be maintained, explanations of its function, and cost analysis 

of the Bureau. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. BAIRD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of State to report an assessment 

of the Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau, including whether the Bureau should be maintained, explanations of its function, and cost analysis of the Bureau. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON FUNCTION OF CONFLICT AND STA4 BILIZATION OPERATIONS BUREAU. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State submit a 

6 report to the appropriate congressional committees no 

7 more than 180 days after the passage of this bill conVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:34 Nov 15, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6255.IH H6255

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6255 IH

1 cerning the Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau 

2 (referred to as the ‘‘Bureau’’). 

3 (b) COMPOSITION.—The report shall consist of— 

4 (1) an bottom-line assessment as to whether the 

5 Bureau should be maintained; 

6 (2) an explanation of the unique function the 

7 Bureau serves; 

8 (3) an analysis of the costs associated with the 

9 function of the Bureau, including— 

10 (A) potential costs related to the dissolu11 tion of the Bureau; and 

12 (B) potential savings, both immediate and 

13 long-term, related to the dissolution of the Bu14 reau; and 

15 (4) a plan detailing which, if any, functions or 

16 personnel of the Bureau would be absorbed by other 

17 Bureaus at the Department. 

18 (c) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.— 

19 The term ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’ means 

20 the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Af21 fairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Ivan JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.