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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6141

JESSIE JAMES RICHMOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

W. SWEETING; W. IRVING; A. W. HENDERSON,

JOSEPH SMITH, Warden of Federal Correctional

Institution at Edgefield,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA04-1214-4-BH)

Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 29, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie James Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Emery Clark,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jessie James Richmond appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Richmond’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Richmond V. Sweeting,

No. CA-04-1214-4-BH (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2004). 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
Case 19-18585-MAM Doc 202 Filed 09/14/20 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Iodine-xenon, chemical, and petrographie studies of Semarkona chondrules: Evidence for the timing of aqueous alteration      

      January 1, 1991    

We have performed INAA, petrographie, and noble gas analyses on seventeen chondrules from the Semarkona meteorite (LL3.0) primarily to study the relationship of the I-Xe system to other measured properties. We observe a range of ≥10 Ma in apparent I-Xe ages. The three latest apparent ages fall in a cluster, suggesting the possibility of a common event. The initial 129I/127I ratio (R0) is apparently related to chondrule type and/or mineralogy, with nonporphyritic and pyroxene-rich chondrules showing evidence for lower R0'S (later apparent I-Xe ages) than porphyritic and olivine-rich chondrules. In addition, chondrules with sulfides on or near the surface have lower R0S than other chondrules. The 129Xe/132Xe ratio in the trapped Xe component anticorrelates with R0, consistent with evolution of a chronometer in a closed system or in multiple similar systems. On the basis of these correlations, we conclude that the variations in R0 represent variations in ages, and that later event(s), possibly aqueous alteration, preferentially affected chondrules with nonporphyritic textures and/or sulfide-rich exteriors about 10 Ma after the formation of the chondrules.

## Citation Information
[Cite as Roberts v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2009-Ohio-7015.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

JUAN ROBERTS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. 

 Defendants 

 

Case No. 2006-05551 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Steven A. Larson 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 1} On September 28, 2009, the magistrate issued a decision recommending 

judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $12,025. 

{¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to 

a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not 

the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by 

Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).” No objections were filed. 

{¶ 3} The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident 

on the face of the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the magistrate’s 

decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of 

law contained therein. 

{¶ 4} Judgment is rendered for plaintiff in the amount of $12,025 which includes 

the filing fee paid by plaintiff. Court costs are assessed against defendant. The clerk 

shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 
Case No. 2006-05551 - 2 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Amy S. Brown 

Daniel R. Forsythe 

Eric A. Walker 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Magistrate Steven A. Larson 

Walter W. Messenger, Jr. 

1625 Bethel Road, Suite 102 

Columbus, Ohio 43220 

MR/cmd

Filed November 3, 2009 

To S.C. reporter December 29, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Canglobe International, Inc.
on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Heinz
Leuders,  President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Heinz Leuders
Heinz Leuders
President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


November 15, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Filename on CD Document Title Abstract FDMS Document Type

Test_Report_PCS_Geismar_Train

_4_Part_1.pdf

Test Report: PCS Nitrogen 

Fertilizer LP. Nitric Acid Plant 

Train 4. Emission Rate Test. 

2010.

Section 114 Response from PCS 

Nitrogen Fertilizer LP (Geismar, 

Louisiana). Test Report for Train 

4. Part 1 of 6. Test date: April 22, 

2010.

Supporting & Related Materials

Test_Report_PCS_Geismar_Train

_4_Part_2.pdf

Test Report: PCS Nitrogen 

Fertilizer LP. Nitric Acid Plant 

Train 4. Emission Rate Test. 

2010.

Section 114 Response from PCS 

Nitrogen Fertilizer LP (Geismar, 

Louisiana). Test Report for Train 

4. Part 2 of 6. Test date: April 22, 

2010.

Supporting & Related Materials

Test_Report_PCS_Geismar_Train

_4_Part_3.pdf

Test Report: PCS Nitrogen 

Fertilizer LP. Nitric Acid Plant 

Train 4. Emission Rate Test. 

2010.

Section 114 Response from PCS 

Nitrogen Fertilizer LP (Geismar, 

Louisiana). Test Report for Train 

4. Part 3 of 6. Test date: April 22, 

2010.

Supporting & Related Materials

Test_Report_PCS_Geismar_Train

_4_Part_4.pdf

Test Report: PCS Nitrogen 

Fertilizer LP. Nitric Acid Plant 

Train 4. Emission Rate Test. 

2010.

Section 114 Response from PCS 

Nitrogen Fertilizer LP (Geismar, 

Louisiana). Test Report for Train 

4. Part 4 of 6. Test date: April 22, 

2010.

Supporting & Related Materials

Test_Report_PCS_Geismar_Train

_4_Part_5.pdf

Test Report: PCS Nitrogen 

Fertilizer LP. Nitric Acid Plant 

Train 4. Emission Rate Test. 

2010.

Section 114 Response from PCS 

Nitrogen Fertilizer LP (Geismar, 

Louisiana). Test Report for Train 

4. Part 5 of 6. Test date: April 22, 

2010.

Supporting & Related Materials

Test_Report_PCS_Geismar_Train

_4_Part_6.pdf

Test Report: PCS Nitrogen 

Fertilizer LP. Nitric Acid Plant 

Train 4. Emission Rate Test. 

2010.

Section 114 Response from PCS 

Nitrogen Fertilizer LP (Geismar, 

Louisiana). Test Report for Train 

4. Part 6 of 6. Test date: April 22, 

2010.

Supporting & Related Materials
FDMS Document Sub-Type Source Citation Authors (limited to 48 

characters including spaces) Document Date

Report Entech Engineering Inc. 5/25/2010

Report Entech Engineering Inc. 5/25/2010

Report Entech Engineering Inc. 5/25/2010

Report Entech Engineering Inc. 5/25/2010

Report Entech Engineering Inc. 5/25/2010

Report Entech Engineering Inc. 5/25/2010
Number of pages Page Range Special Instructions to Docket 

Office

Docket Item Number (EPA-HQOAR-2010-0750-)

50

50

50

50

50

15
Posted Docket Item Number File Types Status

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                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 Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.
("the Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kirk C. Saylor, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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.


                                    By: /s/ Kirk C. Saylor
                                        --------------------------------------
                                    Kirk C. Saylor, Chief Financial Officer
                                    March 21, 2003
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-17-2008

USA v. Charles McCormick

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-4776

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Charles McCormick" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 84.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/84
 Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of *

International Trade, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 07-4776

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHARLES MCCORMICK,

Appellant

________________

Appeal from the

United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey

(D.C. Criminal No. 07-cr-00075)

District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 21, 2008

________________

Before: BARRY and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge *

Opinion Filed: December 17, 2008

_______________

OPINION

_______________

RESTANI, Judge.
2

In this appeal, Charles McCormick challenges his sentence of 33 months for a

three-count wire fraud conviction as unreasonable. We will affirm the sentence.

The facts of the underlying crime are well-known to the parties and we will not

repeat them here. The sentence is within the range calculated under the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines and that calculation is not challenged. McCormick also concedes that the

court identified mitigating facts as it recounted the factors it was required to consider

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). McCormick’s argument, rather, is that that consideration was

formulaic and that the court placed undo emphasis on his criminal history and the

seriousness of the offense.

Where the court has so clearly considered the statutory factors and cited to the

specific evidence of record for potential mitigation, it is difficult to conclude the court did

not follow proper procedure. That the court was moved by prior criminal history and the

seriousness of the offense, nonetheless, to select a sentence at the high end of the

guideline range does not establish an abuse of discretion. We conclude that the sentence

was a reasonable one and will affirm the District Court’s Judgment and Conviction Order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE TWELVE  MONTH  PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                      0001088202
<NAME>                     TRIPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,491)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)



</TABLE>
[Cite as Roberts v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 2009-Ohio-7015.] 

# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

JUAN ROBERTS

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al.

Defendants

Case No. 2006-05551

Judge Joseph T. Clark Magistrate Steven A. Larson

JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 1} On September 28, 2009, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $12,025.
{¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).” No objections were filed.
{¶ 3} The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of

law contained therein.
{¶ 4} Judgment is rendered for plaintiff in the amount of $12,025 which includes the filing fee paid by plaintiff. Court costs are assessed against defendant. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.Case No. 2006-05551 - 2 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

_____________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge

cc:

A my S. Brown Daniel R. Forsythe Eric A. Walker A ssistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130

Magistrate Steven A. Larson Walter W. Messenger, Jr. 1625 Bethel Road, Suite 102 Columbus, Ohio 43220

MR/cmd Filed November 3, 2009 To S.C. reporter December 29, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3480 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3480

To provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the Commodity 
         Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2012

Mr. Johanns (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Tester, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Toomey, 
and Mrs. Hagan) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the Commodity 
         Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

SECTION 1. MARGIN REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) Requirements.--
            (1) Commodity exchange act amendment.--Section 4s(e) of the 
        Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6s(e)), as added by section 
        731 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
        Protection Act, is amended by adding at the end the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--The 
        requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall not 
        apply to a swap in which a counterparty qualifies for an 
        exception under section 2(h)(7)(A) or satisfies the criteria in 
        section 2(h)(7)(D).''.
            (2) Securities exchange act amendment.--Section 15F(e) of 
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)), as 
        added by section 764(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
        and Consumer Protection Act, is amended by adding at the end 
        the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--The 
        requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall not 
        apply to a security-based swap in which a counterparty 
        qualifies for an exception under section 3C(g)(1) or satisfies 
        the criteria in section 3C(g)(4).''.
    (b) Implementation.--The amendments made by this section to the 
Commodity Exchange Act shall be implemented--
            (1) without regard to--
                    (A) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code; and
                    (B) the notice and comment provisions of section 
                553 of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) through the promulgation of an interim final rule, 
        pursuant to which public comment will be sought before a final 
        rule is issued; and
            (3) such that paragraph (1) shall apply solely to changes 
        to rules and regulations, or proposed rules and regulations, 
        that are limited to and directly a consequence of such 
        amendments.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w6







EXHIBIT 10.6




CONFORMED COPY



As of September 25, 2011




Martin J. Wygod

c/o WebMD Health Corp.

669 River Drive




Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407



Dear Marty:




     Reference is made to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between you and WebMD
Health Corp. (“WebMD Health” or the “Company”), dated August 3, 2005 (as previously amended, the
“Employment Agreement”). This letter is intended to describe the material terms of a non-qualified
stock option grant made to you on September 25, 2011 (the “Date of Grant”), including the Change in
Control provisions.



     1. Stock Options. On the Date of Grant, the Compensation Committee approved
the grant to you of a non-qualified option (the “Option”) to purchase 350,000 shares of common
stock of WebMD Health Corp. under the terms and conditions of the WebMD Health Corp. Amended and
Restated 2005 Long Term Incentive Plan (the “Equity Plan”). The per share exercise price of the
Option is the closing price of the common stock on September 23, 2011. The Option will have a term
of ten (10) years, subject to earlier termination in the event of the termination of your
employment. The Option shall vest and become exercisable, subject to your continued employment on
the applicable dates (except as set forth in the Employment Agreement), as follows: 25% of the
Option on each of the first, second, third and fourth anniversaries of the Date of Grant (full
vesting occurring on the fourth anniversary of the Date of Grant). The Option shall be evidenced
by and subject to the terms of the Company’s form of stock option agreement, which will be sent to
you separately; provided, that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the stock
option agreement, the Option shall be treated as “Outstanding Equity” for purposes of the
Employment Agreement and subject to the provisions set forth therein.



     2. Waiver of Previously Granted Restricted Stock. Effective as of the date hereof,
you hereby agree to waive your right to receive 7,133 shares of restricted stock of WebMD Health
(the “Shares”) that were granted to you by the Compensation Committee in February 2011 (no
portion of which has yet become vested in accordance with its terms), as such number of Shares
inadvertently exceeded the per person annual value limit for restricted share grants under the
terms of the Equity Plan.



     You acknowledge that you continue to be bound by, and you hereby reaffirm your
obligations under Section 6 of the Employment Agreement.



 









 





     Defined terms will have the meaning ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement, unless
separately defined herein. Except as set forth herein, the Employment Agreement remains in full
force and effect.


Sincerely,



WebMD Health Corp.




	 	 	 

	/s/ Lewis H. Leicher
 


	 	 
	By: Lewis H. Leicher
	 	 
	Title: Senior Vice President
	 	 





Agreed to:




	 	 	 

	/s/ Martin J. Wygod
 


	 	 
	Martin J. Wygod
	 	 






2