alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The HONORABLE JOHN A. JARVEY, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2623

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Chad Michael Lee Welsh, * [TO BE PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2010

Filed: June 11, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chad Welsh pleaded guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); and possessing child pornography, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Granting Welsh a downward variance from the

advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 151-188 months, the district court1

sentenced him to concurrent terms of 100 months in prison and 10 years of supervised

release that included a number of special conditions. Welsh timely appeals. His

counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
-2-

U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues, the reasonableness of Welsh’s sentence and the

constitutionality of a supervised-release condition imposing a lifetime requirement to

register as a sex offender. 

First, after careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court

committed no procedural sentencing error, made an individualized assessment of facts

relevant to sentencing, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and did

not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849

(8th Cir. 2009). 

Second, counsel advises that he raised the lifetime registry issue at Welsh’s

request but believes that Welsh does not understand that the court only required, in

both an express and a special condition of supervised release, that he “register with

the state sex offender registration agency” in the State where he resides or works, and

“comply with all sex offender laws” in that State. Counsel is correct. These

conditions of supervised release are limited to the ten-year period of supervised

release. Whether Welsh will be subject to sex-offender registration requirements after

that term will depend upon applicable state and federal statutes, not this judgment. If

Welsh is also contending that the district court abused its discretion in imposing these

registration conditions, the contention is without merit because Congress has

mandated their inclusion for those convicted of sex offenses. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(d); 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911(1), 16913(a); United States v. Rhone, 535 F.3d 812,

813 (8th Cir. 2008).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
Order entered October , 2012 

In The 

Court of appeabs 

liftb 3Biotritt of Zrexali at 313af1ati 

No. 05-12-00551-CR 

KEITH BRONSHA PAUL, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F10-42449-Y 

ORDER 

The reporter's record is overdue in this appeal. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court 

to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter's record 

because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other reason. 

• The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect. 

• If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter's record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 
appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal. 

• The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter's explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter's record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter's record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order. 

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier. 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
Senior Management Bonus Plan






Exhibit 10.1                    


SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC.
FIRST AMENDMENT 
TO 
SENIOR MANAGEMENT BONUS PLAN


(May 17, 2012)


RECITALS


A.    Shiloh Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), has previously adopted a Senior Management Bonus Plan, effective December 8, 2009 (the “Bonus Plan”).


B.    The Corporation desires to amend the definition of “Eligible Executive” set forth in the Bonus Plan as provided herein.


C.    Terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Bonus Plan.


AGREEMENT


1.    The definition of “Eligible Executive” in Section 2 of the Bonus Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Eligible Executive” means the Corporation's Chief Executive Officer and each other executive officer of the Corporation that the Committee approves as a participant in the Plan.”


2.    Except as set forth in this First Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Bonus Plan shall remain in full force and effect, and the same are unmodified hereby.
#### Ronald K. JORDAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brian D. HALL, Correctional Officer, PCC, Individually; Joey Arcand, Caseworker, PCC, Individually Defendants-Appellees *449Paul Johnson, Caseworker, PCC, Individually; Clifford Owens, FUM, PCC, Individually Defendants

No. 15-3424

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 2017

Filed: June 6, 2017

Ronald K. Jordan, Pro Se

Katherine S. Walsh, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Ronald K. Jordan appeals following final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Mr. Jordan challenges the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to defendant Joey Arcand; the verdict in favor of defendant Brian D. Hall after a bench trial; and several pretrial and post-trial orders. We agree with the district court that there were no jury issues on Mr. Jordan’s due process claim against Mr. Arcand. See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment, viewing evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of non-moving party). Further, we find no clear error in the district court’s finding that Mr. Jordan did not show that Mr. Hall — in conducting searches of, and confiscating items from, Mr. Jordan’s person or cell — was acting in retaliation for Mr. Jordan’s engagement in protected activity. See Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic, 847 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2017) (following bench trial, this court reviews de novo legal conclusions, and for clear error factual findings); Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732, 739 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court’s credibility findings in bench trial, like jury’s credibility findings in jury trial, are virtually unassailable on appeal); Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449-50 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of retaliation claim). Finally, as to Mr. Jordan’s remaining challenges to district court orders, they provide no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.47B

1

. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
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 Defense

###### Department of the Navy

          - 32 CFR Part 744
          - [Docket ID: USN-2020-HQ-0005]
          - RIN 0703-AB27

# AGENCY:

 Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

 Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

                         This final rule removes the Navy regulation on the Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Proprietary Rights in Technical Information Proposed for Release to                               ( print page 9446)                            Foreign Governments because its content is duplicative of a DoD-level regulation. The rule is redundant and unnecessary. Therefore, this rule can be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).                    

# DATES:

This rule is effective on February 22, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Captain Bruce Gragert, United States Navy, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4B654, Washington, DC 20350-2000, telephone: 703-692-5310. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is removing a duplicative rule memorialized elsewhere in the CFR. The rule provides guidance to Department of the Navy entities on the same delegation of authority captured in 32 CFR 264.4(d)(3). It does not add or subtract requirements beyond those already established.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

# List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 744

      - Military personnel

# PART 744—[REMOVED]

Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 744 is removed.

J.M. Pike,

Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-03625 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Unassociated Document


EXHIBIT 10.8







Form of Distributor Agreement


Computer Nerds International, Inc.







Agreement This Distribution Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Computer Nerds International, Incorporated, a Florida corporation (hereinafter “Distributor”) with offices at 2680 NE 188th St Miami Fl 33180 and Superwarehouse Business Products, Inc. a Florida corporation with offices at 3400 SW 26th Terrace A-8 Ft. Lauderdale Fl 33312 (Hereinafter “Customer”)







Appointment and Term Customer appoints Distributor as its non-exclusive distributor of the Product, in order to market, promote, distribute, and sell the Product to its customers, directly or indirectly and shall include all products, territories, geographies, customers and markets without restriction. The initial term of this Agreement shall begin on October 25th 2011 the Effective Date through December 31st 2012.  The term shall automatically renew for a one year period on each subsequent anniversary date of the Effective Date.  Customer may give written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement at anytime.







Payment Customer will pay Net 3 day terms.  Distributor may request a payment in the form of wire transfer at any time Distributor is owed money, and such payment will be made within 3 business days of the request.







Price Change and Price Protection Distributor will provide Customer an updated price list daily. Distributor agrees to charge Customer its cost plus 2% distributor fee. Price adjustments on Products shall be made in the event of a price increase and decrease. This is referred to as our “cost plus model”.







Entire Agreement The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter, notwithstanding any additional, conflicting, or different terms that may be contained in any quotation, acknowledgment, confirmation, Purchase Order, invoice, or other form of either party.  The terms of this Agreement shall prevail in the event of any conflict.







Notices All notices shall be made in writing and shall be mailed by registered or certified mail return receipt requested with postage prepaid, or hand delivered, or sent by priority delivery service which can confirm delivery to the other party at the address set forth below:


 




	Computer Nerds International, Inc.	 	Superwarehouse Business Products, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Signed:	 	 	Signed:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	 	 	Name:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	 	 	Title:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	 	 	Date:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
              This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted
from financial  statements for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001086473
<NAME>                        Banyan Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                       32423
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                46874
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                   6693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            146578
<PP&E>                                       36160
<DEPRECIATION>                               18481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              412769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       715458
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   3442556
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 334906
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                412768
<SALES>                                     141176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            317550
<CGS>                                        52565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                66711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            118325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           19838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (538889)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (538889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (538889)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.06)




</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 24.1 POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below hereby constitutes and appoints Thomas M. Dougherty, William J. Loughman
and Roy E. Hadley, Jr. his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, each acting
alone, with full powers of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his
name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to execute and sign the
annual report on Form 10-K of AirGate PCS, Inc. (AirGate) and any or all
amendments, including any post-effective amendments, to the 10-K and to file
the same, with exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and hereby ratify and confirm that
said attorneys-in-fact or their substitutes, each acting alone, may lawfully do
or cause to be done by virtue hereof. This Power of Attorney may be executed
in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of
which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same original. Name
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Thomas M. Dougherty
    
    President, Chief Executive
    
    December 14, 2004Thomas M. Dougherty
    
    Officer and Director(Principal Executive
Officer)/s/ William J. Loughman
    
    Vice President, Chief
    
    December 14, 2004William J. Loughman
    
    Financial Officer(Principal Financial
Officer)/s/ Robert A. Ferchat
    
    Director
    
    December 14, 2004Robert A. Ferchat/s/ Max D. Hopper
    
    Director
    
    December 14, 2004Max D. Hopper/s/ Timothy M. OBrien
    
    Director
    
    December, 14 2004Timothy M. OBrien/s/ John W. Risner
    
    Director
    
    December 14, 2004John W. Risner/s/ Stephen R. Stetz
    
    Director
    
    December 14, 2004Stephen R. Stetz/s/ Gail A. Schoettler
    
    Director
    
    December 14, 2004Gail A. Schoettler
**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 MDU Communications International, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2007 (the “Report”), I,
      Carmen Ragusa, Jr., Vice President of Finance of the Company, hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1) the Report fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.





/s/  CARMEN
                RAGUSA, JR.Carmen
                Ragusa, Jr.*Vice
                President of Finance*MDU
                Communications International, Inc.December
                21, 2007Totowa,
                New Jersey





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1




                                                                  March 27, 2002



                  LETTER TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

March 27, 2002

         Andersen has represented to us that: The audit for the year ended
December 31, 2001 was subject to Andersens quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Liberty Self-Stor, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7608

ROBERT LEWIS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; RICHLAND COUNTY;

RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, Solicitor, 5th Judicial Circuit; RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; UNION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY;

ALLEN SLOAN, Sheriff of Richland County; JIM

PALMER; ELIZABETH HANCOCK; BEAU MOORE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-3009-6-3-AK)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lewis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. South

Carolina, No. CA-95-3009-6-3AK (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 1995). 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>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1                    2360881.39      15417628.27                0        463949153.2
A2                     475606.81                0                0           93562000
A3                    1138772.25                0                0          218295000
A4                       1151766                0                0          209412000
A5                        796495                0                0          136542000
A6                        716100                0                0          130200000
A7                    2721536.63       12025485.2                0       551085212.09
A8                        528500                0                0          105000000
R1                             0                0                0                  0
R2                             0                0                0                  0
XIO                    853165.16                0                0                  0


</TABLE>