alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3382

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Richard Harris Bear Runner

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Western

 ____________

 Submitted: April 15, 2022

Filed: June 13, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Richard Harris Bear Runner of Assault Resulting in Serious

Bodily Injury and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. He was sentenced to 57

months’ imprisonment to be followed by 3 years’ supervised release. He has since

been subject to revocation five times due to failures to comply with the terms of

supervised release. He presently appeals his fifth revocation sentence: a within-the-
Guidelines-range sentence of 9 months’ incarceration and 1 year of additional

supervised release.

Mr. Bear Runner identifies no procedural error, appealing only the substantive

reasonableness of his revocation sentence. He argues specifically that his revocation

sentence is too harsh given the fact that his violation was a Grade C violation based

on a failure to participate in court-ordered cognitive-behavior training. He also

argues the district court1 erred by not properly weighing mitigating circumstances

such as COVID-19 disruptions and the death of his father.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse

of discretion, affording broad discretion to the district court for reasons well

illustrated in the present case. See United States v. DeMarrias, 895 F.3d 570, 572–74

(8th Cir. 2018). Here, the experienced district court judge possessed extensive

knowledge of Mr. Bear Runner’s case, the nature of his supervised release violation,

and the role of cognitive-behavior training in relation to the permissible goals of

sentencing. The same judge had imposed Mr. Bear Runner’s initial sentence and

previously had revoked his supervised release. The district court emphasized the

need for supervised release and training to address potential domestic violence

—behavior the district court described as similar to the underlying offense. Because

there was no failure to consider important factors, no consideration of impermissible

factors, and no clear error of judgment, we find no abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Moore, 565 F.3d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 2009).

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

-2-
EXHIBIT
4.8.1




AMENDMENT
TO NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT





This AMENDMENT TO NOTE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made as of this 17th day of
December, 2007 by and between First Montauk Financial Corp., a New Jersey
corporation (the "Company"), and AEFC FMFK Investment Corp., a Delaware
corporation ("Purchaser").  The parties agree as follows:





A.           Whereas
the Company and Purchaser have entered into that certain NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
dated as of December 7, 2007 (the "Agreement"); and





B.           Whereas
the Company and Purchaser wish to amend the Agreement to conform the Agreement
to the mutual understanding of the parties as set forth below.





NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.           Section
1.3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:





"Warrants.                                In
the event the Company (i) does not draw the full $2,000,000 principal amount
available under the Note, and (ii) the Note has not been prepaid by July 1,
2008, the Company will issue to the Purchaser a warrant to purchase 2.8571
shares of Common Stock, at an exercise price of $0.35 per share, as adjusted,
for each one dollar of principal amount available but not drawn upon under the
Note, which warrant shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C (the "Contingent
Warrant").  The Warrant term shall be from the date of issuance
to December 31, 2008, or December 31, 2012 in the event the Company defaults in
the payment of the Note.  In the event the Company elects to prepay
its obligations under the Note, the Company will issue the Purchaser a warrant
to purchase that number of shares of Common Stock as provided for in the Note,
at an exercise price of $0.35 per share, as adjusted, which warrant shall be in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit D (the "Prepayment
Warrant")."








3.           No Other
Changes.  Except as specifically amended via this Amendment,
all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.





4.           Effectiveness of
Amendment.  This Amendment shall become effective as of
December 7, 2007.





5.           Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed in one of more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
agreement.









IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Purchaser have caused this Amendment to be
dully executed and delivered by their respective officers thereunto duly
authorized as of the date first written above.






FIRST
      MONTAUK FINANCIAL CORP.By:
              /s/
      Victor K. KurylakVictor
      K. KurylakTitle :
              President
      and Chief Executive OfficerAEFC
      FMFK Investment Corp.By:
              /s/
      Joel E. MarksJoel
      E. MarksTitle:
              Secretary





















































SIGNATURE
PAGE TO AMENDMENT TO NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

SPLIT PIVOT, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 1241

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in No. 3:12

- cv

- 00639

- WMC, Judge William M. Conley.

______________________

JUDGMEN T

______________________

A LAN M ARSHALL A NDERSON , Alan Anderson Law Firm LLC, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff

appellant. With him on the brief was A ARON C. N YQUIST

. Of counsel was C HRISTOPHER A. Y OUNG , Kutak Rock LLP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

D AN L. B AGET E LL , Perkins Coie LLP, of Phoenix, Ar izona, argued for defendant

- appellee. On the brief were J OHN S. S KILTON , A UTUMN N. N ERO and D AVID R. P EKAREK K ROHN , of Madison, Wisconsin.______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK , W ALLACH , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

December 8, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
#### RONALD SCHIAVO *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 35059)

Gruendel, Alvord and Bear, Js.

Argued February 21—

officially released March 25, 2014

Petitioner’s appeal from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, *Cobb, J.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8847 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ‘‘Robert L. Brown 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2020 

Ms. CHENEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ‘‘Robert L. Brown Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ROBERT L. BROWN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 440 Arapahoe Street in 

6 Thermopolis, Wyoming, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Robert L. Brown Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8847 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert L. Brown Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
No. 12-5113.

#### Hope *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Daniel L. Nir, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of The St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation; 

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 thestatements 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 thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officerand 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 small business issuer and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: June 27, 2007
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.20

                              FRONTIER CORPORATION

                          EMPLOYEES' STOCK OPTION PLAN

                                Amendment No. 1

     Pursuant to Section 12, the Plan is amended, effective January 1, 1999, by
deleting the first paragraph of Section 7 in its entirety and substituting in
its place the following:

     If the employment of a participant terminates by reason of the
participant's disability or death, any option may be exercised, in the case of
disability, by the participant or, in the case of death, the participant's
designated beneficiary (or personal representative if there is no designated
beneficiary) at any time prior to the earlier of the expiration date of the
option or the expiration of one year after the date of disability or death, but
only if, and to the extent that, the participant was entitled to exercise the
option on the date of his disability or death.  If the employment of a
participant terminates on account of retirement, all of the participant's
outstanding options shall become immediately vested and these options together
with previously vested but unexercised options may be exercised at any time
prior to the earlier of the expiration date of the option or the expiration of
13 months from the date of retirement.  For this purpose, "retirement" means any
termination of employment on or after a participant is entitled to receive an
early retirement benefit under any defined benefit pension plan maintained by
the Company or an affiliate in which the participant has an accrued benefit.  If
the participant does not have an accrued benefit in any such plan, "retirement"
means the participant's termination of employment on or after he has reached age
55.  Upon termination of the participant's employment for any reason other than
retirement, disability or death, all non-vested options held by the participant
shall be forfeited and any options that are vested on the date of termination
may be exercised prior to the earlier of the expiration date of the option or
the expiration of 90 days from the date of termination.  Notwithstanding the
foregoing, an option may not be exercised after retirement if the Committee
reasonably determines that the termination of employment of such participant
resulted from willful acts, or failure to act, by the participant detrimental to
the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to
execute this amendment on its behalf this 9th day of December 1998.

                                         FRONTIER CORPORATION
<PAGE>
 
                                        /s/ Barbara J. LaVerdi
                                By: ------------------------------------------
                                     Barbara J. LaVerdi, Assistant Secretary
Exhibit 10.2


 


JOINDER AGREEMENT


 


July 14, 2021


 


By executing this joinder,
the undersigned hereby agrees, as of the date first set forth above, that the undersigned shall become a party to that certain Registration
Rights Agreement, dated May 20, 2021 (as may be amended or restated from time to time, the “Registration Rights Agreement”),
by and among Graf Acquisition Corp. IV, Graf Acquisition Partners IV LLC and the other Holders signatory thereto (as defined therein),
and shall be bound by the terms and provisions of the Registration Rights Agreement as a Holder and entitled to the rights of a Holder
under the Registration Rights Agreement and the shares of common stock of the Company, par value $0.0001 per share, held by it shall be
 “Registrable Securities” thereunder.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






    


     


    

 


	 	/s/ Alexandra Lebenthal
	 	Alexandra Lebenthal






 


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


 


	GRAF ACQUISITION CORP. IV	 
	 	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ James A. Graf	 
	 	Name: James A. Graf	 
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer	 




 


[Signature Page to Joinder
Agreement]
No. 11-11036.

#### Ennis, aka Jones *v.*Kirkpatrick, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 033-57163, 333-00333, 333-21815, 333-47369, 333-68969, 333-82935, 333-38616,333-53180, 333-97599, 333-100755, 333-101440, 333-138546 and 333-155566 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-128130 on Form S-3 of our reports dated September 10, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of Symmetricom, Inc, and the effectiveness of Symmetricom, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Symmetricom, Inc. for the year ended June 27, 2010.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

San Jose, California 

September 10, 2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7667** 

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
LT. JOSIAH; SGT. JESSUP; CHIEF STERN; DEPUTY STERN; CAPT. MILANO; DANA LAWHORNE, Sherriff , Defendants

– Appellees , and
A. ANDERSON, AUSA; C. M. HILTON, Usdc

- Edva , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 00467

- RBS

- TEM )

Submitted : January 5, 2015 Decided: January 16, 2015

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

James Lester Roudabush, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Broderick Coleman D unn , Alexander Francuzenko , COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC , Fairfax , Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr.

— a federal pretrial
detainee

— seeks to appeal the district court’s September 19,
2014 order granting his motion to reopen and vacating its prior order of dismissal, denying his motion to recuse, denying his motion relating to the withdrawal of funds from his inmate account, denying his motions to expedite, dismissing two
defendants, and requestin g that the remaining defendants return
waivers of service. This court may exercise jurisdic tion only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Bene ficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 47 (1949). The order Roudabush seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 12-5575.

#### Vasquez-Gutierrez *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED 9-30-98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      15,701,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,603,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,188,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     29,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,509,000
<PP&E>                                       4,066,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,146,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,358,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,609,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           68,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,625,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,358,000
<SALES>                                      7,280,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,280,000
<CGS>                                        1,120,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,252,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (253,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,478,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,433,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,433,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

July 21, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with the MEMA

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a teleconference held on January 13, 2011 between MEMA, 

NHTSA, and EPA. The agencies provided a broad overview of the Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency proposal. The list of attendees is included 

below. 

COMPANY NAME 13-Jan

GUESTS

USEPA Byron Bunker 1

USEPA Angela Cullen 1

USDOT-NHTSA Maurice Hicks 1

SUPPLIER WORKING GROUP

Alcoa Brian Tucker 1

Bendix Andreea Raaber 1

Bendix Mark McCollough 1

Bergstrom Paul VonDriska 1

Delphi Dina Vizzacarro 1

Delphi Ragiemra Amato 1

Delphi Bruce Moor 1

Delphi Daniel Hennessy 1

Eaton Chris Hess 1
2

Espar Heater Systems Paula Bishop 1

Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association Jennifer Hjalmquist 1

Honeywell Jackie Glassman 1

Honeywell Nando Gomez 1

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association Catherine Boland 1

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association Leigh Merino 1

Remy Jack Vollbrecht 1

Robert Bosch LLC Cathy Lillie 1

SRG Global Patrick Fenchak 1

Umicore Autocat USA Inc. Greg Garr 1

Webasto Albrecht Otte 1

ZF Industries, Inc. Muneer Samra 1

24
# File Information

A8 - Consumption by Income

Std Errors for A8

N Cells for A8

# A8 - Consumption by Income

# Std Errors for A8

# N Cells for A8
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Kevin J. Brown, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Robbins &
Myers, Inc. ("the Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      1.    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended
            August 31, 2005 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of section 33(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78c(d)) and

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

Dated: November 29, 2005
                                                 /s/ Kevin J. Brown
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 Kevin J. Brown
                                                 Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

81