alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                       EXHIBIT 1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:
Mano Mahadeva                                       Alvis Swinney
832.601.6128                                        832.601.6174
mano.mahadeva@usoncology.com                        alvis.swinney@usoncology.com

US Oncology, Inc. Completes Private Placement of $175 Million of Senior
Subordinated Notes

     HOUSTON, Feb. 1, 2002 - US Oncology, Inc. (Nasdaq: USON) today announced it
completed a private placement of $175,000,000 aggregate principal amount of
unsecured senior subordinated notes. The notes bear interest at an annual rate
of 9.625 percent and mature on Feb. 1, 2012.

     The notes are guaranteed on an unsecured senior subordinated basis by the
Company's subsidiaries. The net proceeds of the offering will be used to repay
senior debt and for general business purposes.

     UBS Warburg, Wachovia Securities and Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown were the
joint lead managers for the private placement of the notes.

     US Oncology, headquartered in Houston, is America's premier cancer care
services company. The Company supports the cancer care community by providing
oncology pharmaceutical services, cancer center services, and cancer research
services. US Oncology is affiliated with over 850 physicians operating in over
450 locations, including 77 outpatient cancer centers, in 27 states.

This press release contains forward-looking statements, including statements
that include the words "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates,"
"intends," "plans," "projects," or similar expressions and statements regarding
our prospects. All statements concerning expected financial results, the
benefits of the service line structure, pro forma financial presentations, and
all other statements other than statements of historical fact included in this
press release are forward-looking statements. Although the company believes that
the expectations reflected in such statements are reasonable, it can give no
assurance that such expectations will prove to have been correct. Matters that
could further impact future results and financial condition include the success
of the service line structure, transition of existing practices, expansion into
new markets, reimbursement for healthcare services, government regulation and
enforcement, continued relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other
vendors, increases in the cost of providing cancer treatment services and the
operations of the company's affiliated physician groups. Please refer to the
company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2000 and subsequent SEC filings, for a more
extensive discussion of factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from the company's expectations.

                                      ###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmed Mohammed-Abdullah-Omar AL-HAJ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3177

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed January 23, 2018

(D.C. No. 5:03-CR-40100-SAC-4) (D. Kansas)

James A. Brown, Jared S. Maag, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ahmed Mohammed-Abdullah-Omar Al-Haj, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge

To make a long story short, Defendant Al-Haj filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 asking the federal district court in Kansas to hold “void” a Kansas state forfeiture proceeding that was resolved against him in 2006. Specifically, Defendant sought the return of $4,453 in cash and a 1998 Chevy Tahoe. The district *523court denied Defendant’s motion on the merits and Defendant appealed. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Now before the Court is the Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction on the basis of the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); *D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments, rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” *Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.,*544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Such cases overlook the fact that appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments rests, via 28 U.S.C. § 1257, in the Supreme Court alone. Defendant here litigated and lost in state court. His Rule 60 motion essentially invited the district court, a federal court of first instance, to review and reverse an unfavorable state court judgment. Accordingly, the district court should have dismissed Defendant’s motion for want of jurisdiction. While we DENY the Government’s motion to dismiss *this appeal*for want of jurisdiction, we VACATE the decision of the district court and REMAND to the district court with instructions to dismiss Defendant’s motion for want of subject,matter jurisdiction. *Exxon Mobil,*544 U.S. at 283-84, 125 S.Ct. 1517.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Deauntee Q. MOSBY Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1362

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 24, 2017

Filed: January 2, 2018

Nhan Due Nguyen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Deauntee Q. Mosby, Pro Se

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

• PER CURIAM.

Deauntee Mosby directly appeals after pleading guilty in the district court1 to participating in a drug conspiracy, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

*401We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Ro.seann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7014** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WILLIAM ONEAL WINFREY, a/k/a Joe , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:14

- cr - 00400

- HMH

- 1; 6:16

- cv - 01833

- HMH )

Submitted : December 20 , 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

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

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Oneal Winfrey, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpu blished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Oneal Winfrey seeks t o appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge i ssues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- E l v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Winfrey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Winfrey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         7,746
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,114,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,260
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,690,606
<PP&E>                                         375,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,958,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,614,717
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       14,879
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,958,650
<SALES>                                        6,475,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          4,553,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,698,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (320,924)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,097,105)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (279,395)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (817,710)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 99



To the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:


Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) has audited the financial statements of Southern
Investors Service Company, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then
ended and has issued its report thereon dated March 27, 2002.  Andersen has
represented to Southern Investors Service Company, Inc. that the audit was
subject to Andersen's 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 Arthur 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.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 43

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 should not be radically overhauled, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1997

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. BORSKI, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr.

LAHOOD, Mr. QUINN, Mr. NADLER, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. MCGOVERN,

Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mrs. MORELLA, Mrs.

KENNELLY of Connecticut, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. CARDIN, Mr.

KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. CASTLE, Ms. DELAURO,

Mr. MCHALE, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr.

HOLDEN, and Mr. ROTHMAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 should not

be radically overhauled, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRESERVA4 TION OF A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRO5 GRAM.

6 It is the sense of Congress that—
2

•HCON 43 IH

1 (1) the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi2 ciency Act of 1991 represented a revolutionary

3 change from past transportation legislation and its

4 fundamental structure should be preserved, not radi5 cally overhauled;

6 (2) transportation funds should be allocated to

7 States primarily based on needs; except that adjust8 ments to reflect system usage, system extent, level of

9 effort, each State’s overall balance of Federal pay10 ments, and historic distribution patterns should also

11 be considered;

12 (3) census data predating the 1990 census

13 should not be used to apportion Federal transpor14 tation funds;

15 (4) the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

16 Improvement Program and the Bridge Program are

17 important national programs that should not be sub18 stantially changed;

19 (5) programs which support mass transpor20 tation should remain a national priority supported

21 by Federal funds;

22 (6) the level of Federal investment in transpor23 tation programs should be set at the highest level

24 possible in order to maintain America’s ability to

25 compete globally;
3

•HCON 43 IH

1 (7) prescriptive Federal regulations should be

2 minimized to allow for more efficient and effective

3 transportation programs and to eliminate Federal

4 and State duplication;

5 (8) a dedicated source of funding for Amtrak,

6 and legislation to substantially reform Amtrak,

7 should be included in the law to reauthorize the

8 Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991;

9 (9) the program providing reimbursements for

10 segments of the Interstate System constructed with11 out Federal assistance should be extended;

12 (10) transportation enhancement activities

13 should remain a mandatory part of the surface

14 transportation program; and

15 (11) transportation safety programs should not

16 be diminished.

Æ
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.

# DATES:

*Date of notice:*                         March 30, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 23, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request To Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 4 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-47 and CP2022-52.                

Joshua J. Hofer,

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2022-06698 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 10.3
 [EXECUTION COPY]
 PHANTOM
STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT
RELATING TO
SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, INC.
 Agreement Company  Grantee
  Subsidiary SS/L
  Definitions Plan
 409A Change in Control
 Base Price
 Failed Tranche
 Loral Stock
 SARs
 SAR Equalizer
 Settlement Formula
 SS/L EBITDA




---



##### 



SS/L Phantom Stock
 SS/L Phantom Stock Value
 Subsidiary
 Tranche
 Vesting Date
 Vesting Period
 Grant of Stock Appreciation Rights Grant Date
 Vesting and Settlement
   -2-




---



##### 



Tranche
    
    Number of SARs
    
    
    Base Price
    
    
    Vesting DateFirst
    
    
    50
    %
    
    $
    10.00
    
    
    
    3-18-2010Second
    
    
    25
    %
    
    $
    10.00
    
    
    
    3-18-2011Third
    
    
    25
    %
    
    $
    10.00
    
    
    
    3-18-2012
 Settlement Formula
        
    
    D shall equal the number of SARs subject to the first Tranche
if (x) the SS/L Phantom Stock Value on the Vesting Date for the
first Tranche of SARs was less than $13.00 and (y) the SS/L
Phantom Stock Value on the Vesting Date for the second Tranche
is greater than the SS/L Phantom Stock Value on the Vesting Date
for the first Tranche, or
    
    D shall equal 0 if the conditions set forth above are not
satisfied; and
  
    
    D shall equal the number of SARs subject to the first and
second Tranches if (x) the SS/L Phantom Stock Value on the
Vesting Dates for the first and second Tranches of SARs was less
than $13.00 and (y) the SS/L Phantom Stock Value on the Vesting
Date for the third Tranche is greater than the SS/L Phantom
Stock Values on the Vesting Dates for the first and second
Tranches,
  -3-




---



##### 




    
    D shall equal the number of SARs subject to the second
Tranche if (x) the SS/L Phantom Stock Value on the Vesting Date
for the second tranche of SARs was less than $13.00 and (y) the
SS/L Phantom Stock Value on the Vesting Date for the third
Tranche is greater than the SS/L Phantom Stock Value on the
Vesting Date for the second Tranche, or
    
    D shall equal 0 if the conditions set forth above are not
satisfied.
  SAR
Equalizer
 Failed Tranche
  -4-




---



##### 



Death or Disability
  -5-




---



##### 



Termination of Employment without Cause
  -6-




---



##### 



Other Terminations
 Determination of Employment Termination
 Change in Control
 Nature of SARs
 Non-Transferability
 Recapitalizations, Reorganizations, Etc.
   -7-




---



##### 



Compliance with Law
 Successors
 Administration
 No Right to Employment
 Withholding of Tax
 Governing Law
  -8-




---



##### 



LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.By:
    /s/ Michael B. TargoffName:
    Michael B. TargoffTitle:
    Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President Grantee:
  
 Phone Number of Grantee:
 Email Address of Grantee:
 Social Security No.: 
  -9-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule cotains summary financial information extracted from
consolidated financial statements of Ceramics Process Systems Corporation
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q for
period ending March 29, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          43,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  235,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     84,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               372,715
<PP&E>                                         363,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                 857,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 738,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,451,626
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,780,766
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   738,725
<SALES>                                        937,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               937,609
<CGS>                                          634,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  764,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                108,443
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            108,443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   108,443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
p130131.en1

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0131 Post-Focus Draft Revision 1 3/8/2013

ENGINEER: Austin \ AG PV (kg/yr):

Page 1p130131.en1

Page 2p130131.en1

Page 3p130131.en1

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: Yes (0 criteria met)

1) # of workers exposed: 0 >1000? No 2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: No 3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: No (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr:

No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0131

Page 4p130131.en1

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT s

PMN: 13-0131

Page 5p130131.en1

Page 6p130131.en1

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0131

Page 7p130131.en1

Page 8p130131.en1

Page 9
No. 11-11010.

#### Cook *v.*Gipson, Acting Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin*v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U. S. 1 (1992) *(per curiam).*