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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7393

QUINCY D. BYRD, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

G. HILL, Superintendent; S. D. VOGEL, M.D.; H.

OZINAL, M.D.; B. ROSS, Nurse; A. CRAMER, M.D.;

V. SMITH, RNCB; V. SMITH, Chief Physician/OHS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-1747-AM)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quincy D. Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Douglas Titus, CARR,

GOODSON, LEE & WARNER, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Rosalie Vaughan

Pemberton, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, P.C., Staunton,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and

deny Appellee Hill's motion to dismiss appeal pursuant to Fed. R.

App. P. 3(c). Byrd v. Hill, No. CA-96-1747-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 8,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 2ND
QUARTER FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 4/30/97 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>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  302,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,386
<INVENTORY>                                    380,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               715,534
<PP&E>                                          25,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 843,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          484,176
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   843,258
<SALES>                                        953,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,102,823
<CGS>                                          858,209
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  943,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               116,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,707)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,864
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,609
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,840
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,840
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

March 1,2002

Mr. Kevin Morano
10 Woodnere Way
Pennington, New Jersey 08534

Dear Kevin,

I am pleased to confirm our offer to you on February 21, 2002,  at Lumenis Ltd.,
as Executive  Vice  President and Chief  Financial  Officer  reporting to me. As
agreed when you accepted  our offer on February  21,  2002,  your start date was
March 1, 2002. Our total compensation plan is as follows:

Compensation

o    Your starting salary will be $9,615.39 paid alternating Friday's,  which is
     equivalent to $250,000 on an annualized basis.

o    As a senior member of  management,  you will be eligible to  participate in
     the Lumenis Management Bonus Program up to a 100% base participation  rate.
     The plan is  specifically  designed to reward  participants  based upon the
     attainment of specific Company targets and personal performance.

o    The Company will pay your club dues up to $9,000.00 per year.

o    If your  employment  is  terminated  by the Company for reasons  other than
     "just cause",  the Company will grant you three (3) months of severance pay
     at your base salary.

Stock

The Company intends to grant you a stock option of. 200,000 Lumenis shares. This
option is based on Board approval. The grant date is March 4, 2002 and the price
is the  closing  price on March 1, 2002.  Vesting  will occur over three  years,
33.3% on each of your first three grant anniversary dates.

Conditions Of Employment

All  prospective  employees  are required as a condition of  employment to enter
into the Company's  Proprietary  Information  Agreement.  A copy is enclosed for
your  review.  Please  review  this  document  carefully  since  the  terms  and
conditions  are  incorporated  into and are an  integral  part of this  offer of
employment.  By signing below,  you acknowledge that you understand and agree to
the terms of this offer and acknowledge  that you understand that the Company is
an "at will" employer,  which means that either you or the Company can terminate
your employment relationship at any time with or without notice or cause.

The terms and  conditions  contained in this offer letter  supersede any and all
representations  whether oral or written, made to you by anyone acting on behalf
of the Company.

Kevin,  we are excited  about you joining us. To confirm  your oral  acceptance,
please sign below and return the original to Winona  Watkins,  Santa Clara Human
Resources  Department  at 2400 Condensa  Street,  Santa Clara,  California.  The
enclosed copy is for your records.  If you have any questions,  please feel free
to contact me at 212-515-4188.

  Sincerely,


     /s/
Yacha Sutton
CEO
Offer Accepted.                                    Date:

Start Date:

                                      -29-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Guadalupe DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40029 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Guadalupe Dominguez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Dominguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States*v. *Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Dominguez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Dominguez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal *919presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Daniel Paul HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT; Officer NFN McEowon; Covenant Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-11185

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 23, 2017

Daniel Paul Hudson, Pro Se

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Paul Hudson, Texas prisoner # 2082671, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because Hudson’s § 1983 claims were time barred. The district court further denied Hudson leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that this appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving to proceed IFP here, Hudson is challenging the district court’s certification decision. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Hudson contends that his § 1983 claims were not for personal injury and that the district court therefore erred in subjecting *211them to the two-year limitations period applicable to personal injury claims in. Texas, The district court correctly concluded that Hudson’s § 1983 claims were untimely, as Texas’s two-year statute of limitations under Tex Civ. Peac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a) applies to § 1983 claims in Texas. *See King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist.,*803 F.3d 764, 761 (5th Cir. 2015). The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Hudson’s § 1983 suit and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g), *See Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Hudson is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any. civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-4413



# 
D OUGLAS L. J OHNSON ,

Defendant-Appellee. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-677) Submitted: May 19, 2003 Decided: November 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Jane B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: The United States appeals the eighty-four-month sentence imposed upon Douglas Johnson pursuant to his conviction for possession with intent to distribute in excess of fifty grams of crack cocaine. We vacate and remand. At sentencing, the district court granted the United States’ motion for downward departure based on Johnson’s substantial assistance to the government. The United States contends that the district court departed downward from Johnson’s original guideline range of 135- 168 months. The United States further argues that the court insteadshould have departed downward from 240 months, the minimum sentence to which Johnson was statutorily subject and the sentence that became Johnson’s guideline sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 5G1.1(b) (2002). Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals that, although the district court initially determined that it would depart downward from the original guideline range, the court subsequently corrected itself and stated on at least two occasions that its starting point for the departure was 240 months. However, under the procedure endorsed in United States v. Pillow , 191 F.3d 403, 406-07 (4th Cir. 1999), the departure from 240 months to eighty-four months was unwarranted. Pillow specifically stated that when the district court departs below astatutory minimum sentence that becomes the guideline sentence pursuant to USSG § 5G1.1(b), the defendant remains subject to a statutory minimum sentence: the lowest sentence possible under the original guideline range. 191 F.3d at 407. In the subject case, then, Johnson should have received a sentence of not less than 135 months. We accordingly vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Pillow

. 2 U NITED S TATES v. J OHNSONWe 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 3 U NITED S TATES v. J OHNSON
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the forty weeks ended December 31, 1996
included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000<F1>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          57,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,800
<INVENTORY>                                     72,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               302,000
<PP&E>                                       1,268,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 541,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,197,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          212,400
<BONDS>                                          1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     592,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,197,300
<SALES>                                      1,275,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,275,000
<CGS>                                          761,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  761,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only:  As presented, data is rounded to the
nearest $100 except for per share data.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ EPA - R03 - OW - 2009 - 0985 ; FRL - ] Announcement to E xtend the Recommended Determination P reparation P eriod for the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, Logan County, West Virginia . AGENCY: Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA)
. ACTION: Announcement of Extension
. SUMMARY: EPA’s regulations require that the Regional Administrator either withdraw the Spruce No. 1 Proposed Determination or prepare a Recommended Determination within 30 day s after the conclusion of the public hearing (40 CFR 231.5(a))
. However, in order to allow full consideration of the extensive record, including over 4000 public comments we received, EPA finds there is good cause to extend the time period provided in 40 CFR 231.5(a) until Septe mber 24, 2010. This time extension was made under authority of 40 CFR 231.8, which allows for such extensions upon a showing of good
cause.
Dated:

____________ ________ /s/

_______________ William C. Early Acting Regional Administrator Region III
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41054

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE CAVAZOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-96-CR-99-01

- - - - - - - - - -

November 7, 1997

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Cavazos appeals his convictions for using and carrying

a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense

and for conspiracy to use and carry a firearm during and in

relation to a drug-trafficking offense. Cavazos contends that

there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, that

the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion

for continuance, and that he was denied the effective assistance

of counsel. 
No. 96-41054

-2-

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and hold that there was sufficient evidence to support Cavazos’

convictions. A reasonable jury could have found the elements of

the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United

States v. Pineda-Ortuno, 952 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir. 1992); see

also United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 612 (5th Cir. 1994).

We further hold that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Cavazos’ motion for continuance. See

United States v. Scott, 48 F.3d 1389, 1393 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Cavazos also has not shown that he was prejudiced by the denial

of his motion since he has not shown that the polygraph test

results would have been admissible at trial. See id.; see also

United States v. Pettigrew, 77 F.3d 1500, 1515 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Finally, we decline to address Cavazos’ claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel raised for the first time on appeal. See

United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Although Cavazos’ general allegations of ineffective assistance

in his motion for new trial were addressed by the district court

at sentencing, the specific allegations raised on appeal were not

presented to the district court. See United States v. Andrews,

22 F.3d 1328, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          34,759
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    566,028
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,276
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,507
<LOANS>                                      1,783,712
<ALLOWANCE>                                     25,658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,485,552
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,675,660
<SHORT-TERM>                                   495,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             28,032
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           198
<OTHER-SE>                                     286,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,485,552
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 64,407
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,314
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                77,721
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              39,382
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,496
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           33,225
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    7,766
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 33,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,436)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      (2,436)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,992)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.21
<LOANS-NON>                                     22,212
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                17,280
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                19,741
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,849
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               25,658
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            25,658
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             For the Quarter Ended March 31,
                                                                         --------------------------------------
                                                                               1997                   1996
                                                                         ---------------        ---------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                    <C>
Net Loss                                                                 $        (4,568)       $        (2,666)
                                                                         ===============        ===============
Weighted average common shares outstanding                                         8,438                  7,473

Common shares and options granted (using the treasury
    stock method assuming an initial public offering price
    of $12.00) since December 15, 1994 included pursuant
    to Securities and Exchange Commission Rules                                                             187     
                                                                         ---------------        ---------------
Weighted average common and equivalent shares                                      8,438                  7,660
                                                                         ===============        ===============
Net loss per common and equivalent share                                 $         (0.54)       $         (0.35)
                                                                         ===============        ===============
</TABLE>






                                 Page 21 of 23