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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4710

JAMES DAVID SLUSS, a/k/a J.D.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

David A. Faber, District Judge.

(CR-00-185)

Submitted: April 9, 2002

Decided: May 9, 2002

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

G. Ernest Skaggs, SKAGGS & SKAGGS, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Monica

K. Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

James David Sluss pled guilty to use of a telephone in the commission of a drug trafficking felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

(1994). He appeals his sentence. Sluss’ attorney has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending the district

court erred in determining Sluss’ relevant conduct but stating that, in

his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Sluss has filed a

pro se supplemental brief. 

We review the district court’s factual findings regarding the application of the federal sentencing guidelines for clear error. United

States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 869 (4th Cir. 1992); United States

v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). We find the district

court did not clearly error in determining Sluss’ relevant conduct. See

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2) (2000).

We have also reviewed Sluss’ supplemental brief and find his claims

meritless. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Sluss’ conviction and sentence. We deny Sluss’ motions to relieve his counsel

and to appoint him new counsel. This court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was

served on the client. 

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

2 UNITED STATES v. SLUSS
11/11/19 4:03PM

B2030 (Form 2030) (12/15)

United States Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of Florida

In re Maida Fuentes Gonzalez Case No.

Debtor(s) Chapter 7

DISCLOSURE OF COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR(S)

1. Pursuant to 11 U .S.C. § 329(a) and Fed. Bankr. P. 2016(b), I certify that I am the attorney for the above named debtor(s) and that

compensation paid to me within one year before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or agreed to be paid to me, for services rendered or to

be rendered on behalf of the debtor(s) in contemplation of or in connection with the bankruptcy case is as follows:

For legal services, I have agreed to accept $ 1,500.00

Prior to the filing of this statement I have received $ 1,500.00

Balance Due $ 0.00

2. $ 335.00 of the filing fee has been paid.

3. The source of the compensation paid to me was:

 Debtor  Other (specify):

4. The source of compensation to be paid to me is:

 Debtor  Other (specify):

5.  I have not agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with any other person unless they are members and associates of my law firm.

 I have agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with a person or persons who are not members or associates of my law firm. A

copy of the agreement, together with a list of the names of the people sharing in the compensation is attached.

6. In return for the above-disclosed fee, I have agreed to render legal service for all aspects of the bankruptcy case, including:

a. Analysis of the debtor's financial situation, and rendering advice to the debtor in determining whether to file a petition in bankruptcy;

b. Preparation and filing of any petition, schedules, statement of affairs and plan which may be required;

c. Representation of the debtor at the meeting of creditors and confirmation hearing, and any adjourned hearings thereof;

d. [Other provisions as needed]

7. By agreement with the debtor(s), the above-disclosed fee does not include the following service:

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the foregoing is a complete statement of any agreement or arrangement for payment to me for representation of the debtor(s) in

this bankruptcy proceeding.

November 11, 2019 /s/ Ricardo Corona

Date Ricardo Corona 111333

Signature of Attorney

Corona Law Firm, PA

3899 NW 7 St, Second Floor

Miami, FL 33126

305-266-1150 Fax: 305-266-1151

Name of law firm

Software Copyright (c) 1996-2019 Best Case, LLC - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy

Case 19-25197-AJC Doc 5 Filed 11/11/19 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Magnitude and frequency of floods in Alabama, 2015      

      April 27, 2020    

View Report

View Plate 1

To improve flood-frequency estimates at rural streams in Alabama, annual exceedance probability flows at gaged locations and regional regression equations used to estimate annual exceedance probability flows at ungaged locations were developed by using current geospatial data, new analytical methods, and annual peak-flow data through September 2015 at 242 streamgages in Alabama and surrounding States. The regional regression equations were derived from statistical analyses of annual peak-flow data and basin characteristics for a subset of 217 streamgages. Four flood regions were identified based on residuals from the regional regression analyses and contain sites with similar basin characteristics. A separate set of equations was derived for estimating flood frequency and magnitude for small rural streams using a subset of 40 small basin streamgages. A large river analysis was also completed for 14 selected large-river streamgages in Alabama. Annual exceedance probability flows presented in this report reflect additional streamflow data collected since the previous study of flood magnitude and frequency in Alabama, which included streamflow through September 2003.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Data           

March 4, 2020

####                 Flood regions and annual exceedance probability flows for Alabama streams, data through 2015              

Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center

## Related Content

March 4, 2020

####                 Flood regions and annual exceedance probability flows for Alabama streams, data through 2015              

Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center

### Study Area

### Contact

#### Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center - Nashville, TN Office

640 Grassmere Park DriveNashville, TN37211United States

GS-W-TNnsh Webmaster@usgs.gov

(615) 837-4700

(615) 837-4799 

### Explore Search

                  - Water
                  - United States
                  - Alabama

View All **
Adonis Montenegro PERDOMO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-918

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

Adonis Montenegro Perdomo, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Marlon J. Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Summary of Directors' Compensation



 Exhibit 10(i) 
 SUMMARY OF DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION 
 Effective July 11, 2011, compensation paid
to non-employee directors of A. O. Smith Corporation is as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 An annual cash retainer of $42,500, payable quarterly in advance, and $90,000 paid in A. O. Smith Corporation Common Stock.



  

	 	•	 	 A fee of $1,500 for each board, committee and annual shareholder meeting attended; $3,000 for each Investment Policy Committee meeting.



  

	 	•	 	 A fee of $500 for each telephonic board and committee meeting. 



 

	 	•	 	 A new director orientation meeting fee of $1,500. 


  

	 	•	 	 An annual retainer of $5,000 for Audit Committee members and $3,000 for the members of the Investment Policy Committee, Nominating and Governance
Committee and Personnel and Compensation Committee. 


  

	 	•	 	 An annual retainer of $15,000 for the chairperson of the Audit Committee and $10,000 for the chairpersons of each of the Investment Policy Committee,
Nominating and Governance Committee and Personnel and Compensation Committee. 


  

	 	•	 	 An annual retainer of $20,000 for the presiding director. 


 The foregoing does not reflect any changes to previously disclosed compensation for non-employee directors, except that effective July 11, 2011, A. O. Smith Corporation’s Board of Directors,
upon recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, increased the annual cash retainer from $35,000 to $42,500.
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 Globetech  Environmental,
Inc.  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  June 30,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Donald
Sampson,  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.


By: /s/ Donald Sampson
Donald Sampson

President and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)

April 21, 2006


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.
Spencer CLEMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2811

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 9, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Ray, and Makar, JJ., concur.
DA BUDDY MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I TRUST 2006-IMI, ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-IMI, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2100

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

Spittler & Associates and John Spittler, Jr., for appellant.

DeLuca Law Group and Shawn L. Taylor (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

VIRGINIA ONE DEVELOPMENT, INC, AVERY 

PARK PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a A VERY PARK, 

DSH DIPLOMAT, LLC d/b/a/ DIPLOMAT 

TOWNHOMES, COLONY CREEK, LLC, and 

CROSSINGS TOWNHOMES, LLC, 

Complainants, 

v. 

THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 

Respondent. 

FAADocketNo.16-12-09 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to January 15, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November i..6 2014, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of 

Time to January 15,2015 for FAA Docket No. 16-12-09 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group 

P.O. Box 60036 

Irvine, CA 92602 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Roy E. Hadley, Jr., Esq. 

John L. Watkins, Esq. 

Thompson Hine LLP 

3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 

Atlanta, GA 30326 

Hand delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

QC~M~ laudia Roberts 

1 ~/\ Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking and damaged fasteners ofcertain fuselage frames and stub beams, and corrective action ifnecessary. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires repetitive inspections for /0 [4910-13 

### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 ("DocketNo. FAA-2010-0481; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-192-AD; Amendme 

# /6'-fOe39-**; AD 

## *~)O /0-

# J7-

# J'i R1N 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directivesj The Boeing Company Model 737-100 and -200 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

### ACTION: Finalrule.

cracking ofthe inboard chord fastener hole ofthe frame atbody station 639, stringer 8-16, and corrective actions 

### ifnecessary. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires an inspection to determine the edge margin ofthe lower chord. For airplanes with acertain short edge margin, this AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking, and corrective I
. actions ifnecessary; replacing the lower chord terminates the repetitive inspections. Thi AD requires an eventual preventive modification. For certain airplanes, doing the modification or arepair terminates the repetitive inspections for the repaired ormodified frame only. For airplanes on which the modification orrepair is done atcertain body stations, this AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of certain frame webs and inner and outer chords, and corrective actions ifnecessary. For certain other airplanes, this AD requires amodification which includes reinforcing the body frame inner chords, replacing the stub beam upper chords and attach angles, and reinforcing the stub beam ~TURt:

FAA Form 1360·14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILEC0PY • U,S,GPO' 'lI11D-O-7ea-01 2120' 0'
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Benoit Laliberte, certify that;
 
 (1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Studio Bromont, Inc.;
 
 (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 the statements 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 the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4)  The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and 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 ensure that 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
 about the 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 (the small business issuers fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
 reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 (5)  The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in 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s
 internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: August 26, 2003
 
 
 ___________________________________
 By:  Benoit Laliberte
 Title:  Principal Executive Officer and
 Principal Financial Officer
p130178.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0178

Focus Ready Draft 1/14/2013

ENGINEER: Austin \ AG

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (01/04/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible to Slow

PBT rating: P1B1T1 .

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 5 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2C

Page 1
p130178.eng

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0178

 

 

 

Page 2
p130178.eng

Page 3
p130178.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p130178.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0178

 

 

Page 5
p130178.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 6
p130178.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 7
p130178.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MELVIN SANDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-93-281, CA-97-560-6)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Sanders, Nos. CR-93-281; CA-97-560-6 (M.D.N.C.

Apr. 3, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
Wade Christian ARVO, DOC #760199, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2793

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 25, 2017

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Joanna Beth Conner, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
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  Quarterly Report of The BlackHawk Fund, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005,
as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Brent  Fouch, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director 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:

     (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.

Dated:  May  31,  2005.

                                   /s/  Brent Fouch
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Brent Fouch, Treasurer, Chief Financial
                                   Officer and Director


<PAGE>
Americo Godolfredo JUNCO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-85

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Armando RIVAS, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a The Bank of New York, as trustee FOR the CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-33CB, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-33CB, Luz C. Rivas, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Countrywide Bank, FSB, Estates of Boynton Waters West Homeowners' Association, Inc., Tenant, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 472-21 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 1