alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 700195

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.


### BEAU T. PERKINS Private (E

- 1 ) , U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal fro m the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel Joseph P. Lisiecki, USMCR

. Convening Authority: Command ing Officer
, Headquarters and Support Battalion, Marine Corps Installations West, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA

. S taff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Lieutenant C olonel Todd Enge, US MC

. For Appellant: C ommander C. Eric Roper , JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 17 August 2017

_________________________ Before M ARKS , R UGH , and R USSELL , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Mil itary Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
Kenneth B. LAVARRE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1407

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129618 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129618 COA: 261013 St. Clair CC: 95-001361-FC LAWRENCE EUGENE DELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the a pplication for leave to appeal the August 4, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

s1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason L. TUBERVILLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3981

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 18, 2017

Filed: October 5, 2017

Stephen C. Moss, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Laine Cardarel-la, Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.

Courtney R. Pratten, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Tammy Dickinson, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jason Tuberville appeals the district court’s1 judgment sentencing him to fourteen months imprisonment following revocation of his supervised release. But Tu-berville completed that sentence before his appeal was submitted to this panel. Therefore, his appeal is moot.

On May 29, 2012, Tuberville began a sixty-month term of supervised release after serving a sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. On several occasions from 2012 to 2016, Tuberville violated the terms of his supervised release. On October 5, 2016, the district court revoked Tu-berville’s supervised release and sentenced him to fourteen months imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. Tuberville filed this appeal, arguing that the district court committed procedural error by imposing sentence without explicitly referencing the revocation table at USSG § 7B1.4. He requests that we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. On July 28, 2017, Tuberville completed his sentence and was released from federal custody.

Before we can proceed to the merits of any appeal, we must satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction. We are “-without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). When an inmate’s sentence has been discharged, he can only maintain an appeal of that sentence if there is some “collateral consequence” of *316the incarceration. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). In other words, the inmate must demonstrate that he has a “concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole.” Id.

Tuberville has not made the necessary showing. His appeal seeks only resentenc-ing, his sentence is discharged and was not followed by a term of supervised release, and he has not identified any collateral consequences that amount to a concrete and continuing injury. As such, there is no case or controversy for this court to resolve. The appeal is dismissed as moot.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.32



AMENDMENT TO DEFERRED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO DEFERRED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is made as of November 1, 2018 between GrafTech International Ltd. (“GrafTech”) and David J. Rintoul (the “Participant”).
WHEREAS, GrafTech and Participant are parties to that certain Deferred Share Unit Agreement dated as of April 19, 2018 (the “Original Agreement”);
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Original Agreement as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved the adoption of this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Original Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
1.Section 4 of the Original Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
Dividend Equivalent Units.  Pursuant to, and subject to, the terms and conditions set forth herein and in the Plan, GrafTech hereby awards to the Participant a right to receive in respect of each DSU held by the Participant on a dividend record date occurring after the Grant Date and prior to the date of settlement of the DSUs pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement the equivalent value of any ordinary cash dividends that are paid on a share of Common Stock (“Dividend Equivalent”), subject to the terms of this Section 4.  The Dividend Equivalents will be reinvested in the form of additional DSUs (“Dividend Equivalent Units”) determined by dividing the value of the Dividend Equivalent by the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on GrafTech’s dividend payment date.  Dividend Equivalents will also accrue on the Dividend Equivalent Units (and be reinvested into additional Dividend Equivalent Units).  Dividend Equivalent Units will in all cases be subject to the same terms and conditions, including but not limited to those related to vesting, transferability, forfeiture and settlement, that apply to the corresponding DSU under this Agreement and the Plan.
2.    Except as expressly provided for in this Amendment, no other term or provision of the Original Agreement is amended or modified in any respect.


*    *    *    *    *



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.
GrafTech International Ltd.


/s/ Brian E. Blowes    
By:    Brian E. Blowes
Title:    VP, HR


/s/ David J. Rintoul    
David J. Rintoul
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
listed below of Digex, Incorporated, of our report dated March 19, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Digex,
Incorporated, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Digex, Incorporated
for the year ended December 31, 2002.

o    (Form S-8 No. 333-84025) pertaining to the registration of 19,000,000
     shares of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Digex Incorporated
     Long Term Incentive Plan.
o    (Form S-8 No. 333-34506) pertaining to the registration of 650,000 shares
     of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for Intermedia Communications Inc.
     401(k) Plan.
o    (Form S-8 No. 333-39098) pertaining to the registration of 6,000,000 shares
     of Digex's Class A Common Stock reserved for the Digex Incorporated Long
     Term Incentive Plan.
o    (Form S-8 No. 333-40240) pertaining to the Digex Incorporated 401(k) Plan.


                                /s/ Ernst & Young

McLean, Virginia
March 28, 2003
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40629 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANIEL PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-56-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender representing Daniel Pena has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Pena has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
CARTER TABERNACLE CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN FIRST FEDERAL, INC., SunTrust Bank and Clancy & Theys Construction Company, Appellees.

Case No. 5D16-3240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provides that if any part of a registration statement (at the time such part
becomes effective) contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person
acquiring a security pursuant to that registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, among others, every
accountant who has consented to be named as having prepared or certified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared or certified any report or valuation that is used in connection
with the registration statement, with respect to the statement in such registration statement, report or valuation which purports to have been prepared or certified by the accountant.

This
Form 10-K is incorporated by reference into our Registration Statements on Form S-8 with file numbers 333-84411, 333-39904, 333-59282, 333-71470, and 333-91794 (collectively, the
"Registration Statements"). For purposes of determining any liability under the Securities Act with respect to the Registration Statements, the filing of our Form 10-K is deemed to be a new
registration statement for each Registration Statement.

On
May 3, 2002, we dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP as our independent auditor and appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to replace Andersen. In response to our attempts to obtain Andersen's
consent to the incorporation by reference of Andersen's audit report in our registration statements, Andersen has informed us that its policy is not to provide such consent when Andersen no longer
employs the engagement partner or manager for the requesting company. Both the engagement partner and manager for the Liberate audit are no longer with Andersen. As a result, we have been unable to
obtain Andersen's written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements of its audit report with respect to our financial statements as of May 31, 2001 and 2000 and for
the years then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits us to file this Form 10-K without a written consent from Andersen. As a result, however, Andersen will not
have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen or any omissions of a material fact
required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be unable to assert a claim against Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any purchases of securities under (a) the Registration
Statements (except for our Form S-8 with file number 333-91794) made on or after the date of this Form 10-K, or (b) under our Form S-8 with file number 333-91794, as of its effective date, July 2,
2002.

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1

MUZAK HOLDINGS LLC

Section 302 Certification

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

I, Stephen P. Villa,
Chief Financial Officer of Muzak Holdings LLC certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Muzak
Holdings LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2006



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen P. Villa          
|Name: Stephen P. Villa        
|Title: Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883946
<NAME> NETWORK IMAGING CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          10,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (515)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,359
<PP&E>                                           8,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,130)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,407
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,819
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,626
<SALES>                                         29,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,049
<CGS>                                           18,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (188)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,443)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (89)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,103)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Independent Career Training grants (K08, K23, K99).                    

*Date:*                         March 7, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Eye Institute, National Institute of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Eye Institute, National Institute of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-2020,                         *jeanetteh@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03316 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Walter Hoffman against New York Central Railroad Company, Respondent. State Industrial Board, Appellant.

Argued March 5, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*and *Orrin G. Judd*of counsel), for appellant.

*278
      *Robert E. Whalen*and *Charles E. Nichols*for respondent.

Conway, J.

Claimant was employed by the New York Central Railroad Company for about twenty years. On March 21,1940, he was a boiler maker helper and worked in Shop C of the West Albany shop of the railroad. He was on his way to work between Shop C and Shop D and was walking on a concrete path which the employees used on the employer’s premises. Claimant testified that there was ice on the walk and that he fell. A question of fact was presented as to whether or not claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of his employment so as to entitle him to compensation. It was conceded that his injury was sustained in the course of his employment. There is a presumption that the claim comes within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and the decision of the State Industrial Board is final as to all questions of fact. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 21, 20; *Matter of Daus*v. *Gunderman*
      *279
      *& Sons, Inc.,*283 N. Y. 459, 466.) The frankness of the claimant in testifying that he did not know the canse of his fall, does not, without more, necessarily overcome the presumption that his claim comes within the statute. The question of fact was resolved by the Industrial Board in the claimant’s favor. The award should have been sustained. *(Matter of Unger*v. *New York Sportwear Co.,*268 N. Y. 651; *Matter of Kefford*v. *Federal Reserve Bank,*246 App. Div. 660, motion for leave to appeal denied, 270 N. Y. 675.)

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the award of the State Industrial Board reinstated with costs in this.court and in the Appellate Division.

Lehman, Ch. J., Lohghran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.
David Lee JARVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.