alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy O’LAUGHLIN Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4244

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Filed: August 10, 2017

Cynthia Jean Hyde, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, Christina Leigh Scofield, U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Timothy O’Laughlin, Pro Se

Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy O’Laughlin, who was found incompetent to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). on criminal charges involving stalking and making threats, appeals the district court’s1 order civilly committing him under 18 U.S.C. § 4246, which provides for the hospitalization of a person found after a hearing to be suffering from a mental disease or defect such that his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. See United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 676 (8th Cir. 2002). For reversal, O’Laugh-lin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence justifying his commitment.

Having reviewed for clear error the factual determinations underlying .the commitment decision, see id., we affirm. Specifically, the district court’s order is supported by the opinions of mental health experts who have assessed O’Laughlin at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri—where he is presently confined for treatment—that O’Laughlin was in need of inpatient treatment under section 4246, in part because the symptoms of his mental condition included delusions and paranoid beliefs that caused him to lash out at those he perceived to be targeting him; he lacked insight into his mental condition, the symptoms of which are improved but not resolved with medication; he had a history of not taking prescribed medication; and he minimized the seriousness of, and recently continued to engage in, the behaviors that led to his criminal charges. See Williams, 299 F.3d at 677-78; United States v. Ecker, 30 F.3d *173966, 970 (8th Cir.1994) (suggested factors in determining potential dangerousness). We note that the Attorney General must continue efforts to place O’Laughlin in a suitable state facility, and that while confined O’Laughlin shall receive treatment which may lead to his release or conditional release. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d)-(e); Ecker, 30 F.3d at 971.

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri,
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | October 29, 2010 | By:          | /s/ Darron R. Ming                                             |   |
|--------|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |                                                      | Darron R. Ming                                                 |   |
|   |             |                                                      | Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |             |                                                      |                                                           |   |

----
Presentation to the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCPI Product Stewardship ProgramJune 252009June25,EPA HeadquartersWashington, DCJean KasakevichChairJeanKasakevich,The Dow Chemical CompanyJim Chapman, Vice ChairBayer MaterialScience LLCCPI Product Stewardship:CPIProductStewardship:Issues Management9Seeks to facilitate improved understanding of local, state,federal and international regulatory and legal requirements.9Supports polyurethane raw material suppliers and convertersas lead developers of product stewardship programs forasleaddevelopersofproductstewardshipprogramsforindustry.9CPI member companies are committed to continuing efforts toimprove the industry’s responsible management ofpolyurethane chemicalspolyurethanechemicals.A ti it O iActivityOverview• Guidance Documents• Outreach and Communications• Regulatory Compliance Assistance ProgramP f i lD l P•ProfessionalDevelopmentPrograms•Truck Bed Liner ProgramTruckBedLinerProgramG id D tGuidanceDocumentsAvailable in:EnglishSpanishFrenchCanadianFrenchPortugueseSimplifiedChinese4TraditionalChineseOutreach and Communications MaterialsOutreachandCommunicationsMaterials5Regulatory ComplianceRegulatoryComplianceAssistance Program (RCAP)Multi year programdesigned to help facilitiesthat use diisocyanatesFree assistance to facilitiesusing the CPI calculator softwareand reportingguidelines, bothy(MDI/pMDI) calculate annualemissions for TRI reporting.p ggof which are available onthe CPI website.6Polyurethane ProfessionalPolyurethaneProfessionalDevelopment Programs• AIHA 2009: Professional development courseconsisting of 11 presentations. Sponsored byIRSST and the American Chemistry Council.A diIH f i l–uence -IHprofessionals.– Offered since 1998.– Both NIOSH, OSHA, and IRSST have activelypresented.CPI P l h P f i l D l•CPIPolyurethaneProfessionalDevelopmentProgram: Eight courses covering the basics toadvanced topics of polyurethane chemistry.– The Environmental, Health, and Safety Course isoffered to EHS professionals.– Offered since 2006.• SPFA Accreditation Program: CPI teaches theHealth and SafetyChapter of Course 101 at thepSpray Foam Conference.– Audience – SPF contractors.– Offered for more than 10 years.T k B d Li PTruckBedLinerProgram• Multi-year project, included allianceswith OSHA Regions IV, V, and VI.•Alliances focused exclusively onAlliancesfocusedexclusivelyonuse of MDI in spray-on truck bedliner applications.• Resulted in extensive trainingprograms and guidance materials.– Joint CPI/OSHA Training Seminars–Website– Guidance documents• English and SpanishS ki t–peaking engagements– Trade Shows– VideoC lioncusionCPI is proud to havedecades long history ofleadership and performancein developing and implementingproduct stewardship programsproductstewardshipprograms.CPI welcomes the opportunityCPIwelcomestheopportunityto partner with EPAon product stewardship initiatives.onproductstewardshipinitiatives.
#### Dr. John GRAY Plaintiff-Appellant v. WELCH MOTOR COMPANY, INC., doing business as Welch-Nissan Motors, Inc.; David Welch, Owner Defendants-Appellees Dr. John Gray Plaintiff-Appellant v. Welch Motor Company, Inc., doing business as Welch-Nissan Motors, Inc.; David Welch, Owner Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-1009, No. 17-1227

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 7, 2017

Filed: August 10, 2017

Risie Howard, George Howard Jr. Legal Center, Pine Bluff, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

James D. Robertson, Barber Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Welch Motor Company hired Dr. John Gray as a salesperson in July 2014. Less than one month later, Welch Motor’s sales manager terminated Gray’s employment in part because Gray would frequently leave work to attend to personal errands. Gray sued Welch Motor, raising claims under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1126(h), (i) and 1117), the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) (Ark. Code § 4-88-101 et seq.), and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (Ark. Code § 16-123-107), alleging various acts of race-based discrimination and unfair trade practices.

The district court1 denied various of Gray’s discovery motions and requests, and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Welch Motor on all of Gray’s claims. We have carefully reviewed all of Gray’s appellate arguments, the pleadings, and record evidence in this matter. Cognizant of the standards of review and reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to Gray, giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, Edwards v. Hiland Roberts Dairy, Co., 860 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2017) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo); Hudson Enters, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Ins. Cos., 855 F.3d 874, 877 (8th Cir. 2017) (“We review a district court’s ‘discovery rulings in a manner both narrow, and deferential, and reversal is only warranted if an erroneous ruling amounted to a gross abuse of discretion.’” (quoting Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006))), we affirm the district court for the reasons stated in its analyses and orders. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### Jimmie STEPHEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert W. FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-55324

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Jimmie Stephen, Pro Se

Michael G. Lagrama, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jimmie Stephen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging *630a 2010 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing for five years in accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”). We dismiss.

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Stephen’s next parole hearing for five years violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Nettles v. Grounds,*830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), *cert. denied,*580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); *Phelps v. Alameda,*366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Stephen from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We treat Stephen’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the COA. So treated, the motion is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 224(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Kevin A. STEPHENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3452

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 30, 2018

Kevin A. Stephens, St Augustine, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
#### IN RE: Paul Gene ROCKWOOD, Jr., Petitioner

No. 17-1691

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 4, 2017

(Opinion filed: May 9, 2017)

Paul Gene Rockwood, Jr., Pro Se

Timothy S. Judge, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Scranton, PA, Kate L. Mershimer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant-Respondent

Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

In February 2016, Paul Gene Rockwood, Jr. filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. By order and memorandum entered on April 28, 2017, the District Court denied Rock-wood’s § 2241 petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Rockwood ' now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to act on his § 2241 petition. Because the District Court has already denied Rockwood’s § 2241 petition, we will dismiss as moot his petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re Austrian & German Holocaust Litig., 250 F.3d 156, 162-63 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (mandamus petition requesting that court of appeals compel district court action generally may be dismissed as moot upon district court’s entry of final order).

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5,7 does not constitute binding precedent.
fmnb-ex1018_416.htm



Exhibit 10.18 

Director Compensation 

Each director of Farmers National Banc Corp. (the “Corporation”) who is not an employee of the Corporation shall receive an annual retainer fee of $45,000. Directors with significant additional duties shall receive the following additional retainers: (i) $25,000 for the independent Chair of the Board of Directors; (ii) $20,000 for the independent Board Vice Chair; (iii) $10,000 for the Chair of the Executive Committee; and (iv) $5,000 for all other committee Chairs.

 

 

1
The RIMPSEY AGENCY, INC. v. W.F. JOHNSTON IV and William M. Lawrence

2160575

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Marsarius S. EVANS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0206

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

Marsarius S. Evans, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for belated appeal is denied.

Lewis, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
#### Steven Dixon PRENTICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry EDWARDS, Unit Manager—FTC Oklahoma; HSA Grismer, Health Services Administrator—FCI El Reno; H.A. Ledezma, Warden (former)—FCI El Reno; Jason Sickler, Legal Counsel—BOP South Central Regional Office; Mr. Commacho, Unit Manager (former)—FCI Butner; Angela Dunbar, Warden (former)—Butner Medium II; Justin Andrews, Warden—Butner Medium II; Andrea Richardson, Case Manager, Defendants-Appellees, and Bureau of Prisons; Adrian Towe, Unit Team Counselor—FCI Butner, Defendants.

No. 17-6230

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Steven Dixon Prentice, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven Dixon Prentice appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, *Prentice v. Edwards,*No. 5:15-ct-03006-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 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 aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 32.2



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 the Annual Report of Asia Payment Systems Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Benjamin Leboe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





| | /s/ Benjamin Leboe
Benjamin Leboe
Chief Financial Officer
April 12, 2004
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------





---
EXHIBIT
      32.1





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 the Annual Report of Salon Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Elizabeth Hambrecht,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Elizabeth Hambrecht


June
              27, 2007
            Elizabeth
                Hambrecht


Chief
      Executive Officer  and
      President
Stuart ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. James F. ALLEN and Hertel Park Associates I, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2654

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  following  Financial  Data Schedule contains restated standard data for the
Nine  Months  Ended  October  5,  1998.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            OCT-05-1998
<CASH>                                        1519
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               138816
<ALLOWANCES>                                   739
<INVENTORY>                                  40218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            181886
<PP&E>                                       22208
<DEPRECIATION>                                9477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              221250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       110674
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       115
<OTHER-SE>                                  104937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                221250
<SALES>                                     457831
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            457831
<CGS>                                       396993
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               396993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              23298
<INCOME-TAX>                                  8620
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          14678
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 14678
<EPS-BASIC>                                 1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.25


</TABLE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43444

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL BERNARD STONE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 505

Filed: April 28, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of two years, for grand theft by possession of stolen property, 

affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Daniel Bernard Stone pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property. I.C. 

§§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1), 18-2409, and 18-204. The district court sentenced Stone to a unified 

term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Stone filed an I.C.R 35 

motion, which the district court denied. Stone appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Stone’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Otley L. Smith III, the President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: May 13, 2005 | /s/ Otley L. Smith III                 |   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|               | Otley L. Smith III                     |
|               | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----