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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7231

NARSEAL BATISTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et. al.; JOEL ZIEGLER, Warden, 

FCI Beckley, officially and in his individual capacity; DR. 

DOMINICK MCLAIN, D.O. Clinical Director, officially and in 

his individual capacity; KEVIN THOMPSON, Health Services 

Administrator, officially and in his individual capacity; 

JOHN AND JANE DOES A - Z, also in their official and 

individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:13-cv-13565)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Narseal Batiste, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Narseal Batiste seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and a 

preliminary injunction, and dismissing his complaint filed 

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised Batiste that failure to file timely 

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review 

of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Batiste has waived appellate review by failing to timely file 

objections after receiving proper notice.

Batiste also seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion to submit untimely objections to the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. With respect to 

this order, we have independently reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 
3

stated by the district court. Batiste v. Fed. Bureau of 

Prisons, No. 5:13-cv-13565 (S.D.W. Va. July 21, 2014, Aug. 7, 

2014). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit  23.d





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of our report dated December 15, 2016, relating to the financial statements of Meritor WABCO Vehicle Control Systems for the year ended September 30, 2016 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Meritor, Inc. for the year ended October 2, 2016:





FormRegistration No.PurposeS-3333-200858Registration of common stock, preferred stock, warrants, debt securities and guaranteesS-8333-192458Amended and Restated 2010 Long Term Incentive PlanS-8333-171713Amended 2010 Long-Term Incentive PlanS-8333-1643332010 Long-Term Incentive PlanS-8333-1411862007 Long-Term Incentive PlanS-8333-107913Meritor, Inc. Savings PlanS-8333-123103Meritor, Inc. Hourly Employees Saving PlanS-8333-496101997 Long-Term Incentives PlanS-8333-42012Employee Stock Benefit Plan, 1988 Stock Benefit Plan, and 1998 Employee Stock Benefit Plan











/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP





Detroit, Michigan


December 15, 2016
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.28 
  
 HARRIS NESBITT 
  

			
	 	  	 Harris Trust and Savings Bank
 111 West Monroe Street
 P.O. Box 755
 Chicago, Illinois 60690-0755
  
 Tel: 312 461-2121


  
 FC Stone Group 
 P.O. Box 4887 
 Des Moines, Iowa 50306-4887 
 Attention: Mr. Robert Johnson 
  
 Dear Mr. Johnson: 
  
 I am pleased
to advise you that we have renewed your $15,000,000 revolving line of credit. The purpose of this line of credit is to provide overnight and intraday loans to finance commercial customers’ variation margin calls at the CBOT. We have also
renewed your $5,000,000 revolving line of credit. The purpose of this line of credit is to provide loans to finance grain deliveries on the CBOT. These lines will be available to FC Stone, LLC, subject to the terms of this letter. The continued
availability to you of these lines of credit during their terms are, of course, subject to no material adverse change in your financial condition and operating results continuing to be satisfactory to us. 
  
 Borrowings under these lines will be on a demand basis and bear floating
interest at the Harris Bank prime commercial rate. Interest will be payable on the last day of each month prior to demand and be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days for the actual number of days elapsed. 
  
 So long as the $15,000,000 line of credit is available, you are to pay a
facility fee of 1⁄4 of 1% per annum on the unused portion of the facility computed on the basis of 360 day year for the actual number of days elapsed and payable quarterly in arrears. 
  
 By your execution hereof you agree that you shall reimburse the Bank for all of its out-of-pocket costs and expenses
(including attorneys’ fees) incurred in connection with the transaction contemplated hereby or in the enforcement of your obligations to us. In addition, you agree to indemnify and save us harmless from and against all liabilities, losses,
costs and expenses incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought against us by any person which arises out of the transactions contemplated or financed hereby. 
  
 Dated as of this 5th day of March, 2003. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK

		
	 	 	/s/    CHARLES F. HOWES        
	 By:
	 	Charles F. Howes
	 Its:
	 	Vice President


  

			
	 Accepted and Agreed:

	
	 FC STONE, LLC

	
	 
		
	By:	 	/s/    ROBERT V. JOHNSON        
	 Its:
	 	Exec. V.P.
Simuel HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-82

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Schedule of Executive Officers



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
 SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PARTY TO THE FORM OF 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED CHANGE IN CONTROL
AGREEMENT 
 Each of the parties identified below is party to an amended and restated change in control agreement (“CIC Agreement”) with
Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. substantially in the form of Exhibit 10.5 to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 27, 2008. 
  

					
	 Name of Executive
	 	 Benefit Level Under
 Section 6 of
 of CIC Agreement

	 	 Benefit Level Under
 Section 8 of
 of CIC Agreement


	 Sheree L. Aronson
	 	One Times	 	One Year
	 Leonard R. Borrmann
	 	Two Times	 	Two Years
	 Robert F. Gallagher
	 	One Time	 	One Year
	 Michael J. Lambert
	 	Two Times	 	Two Years
D.M., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-737

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 2, 2019

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, C.J., and SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(17)
              - science_faqs(14)
              - science_science(750)
              - products_data(356)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(4311)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(51)
              - multimedia_audio(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(96)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(9)
              - multimedia_before_after(17)
              - multimedia_image(1659)
              - multimedia_image-141769(49)
              - multimedia_image-141770(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1466)
              - multimedia_image-141772(11)
              - multimedia_image-141774(8)
              - multimedia_image-141775(73)
              - multimedia_image-141776(27)
              - multimedia_image-204460(5)
              - (-)multimedia_image-207195(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(20)
              - multimedia_video(419)
              - multimedia_video-149194(144)
              - multimedia_video-149195(141)
              - multimedia_video-149196(26)
              - multimedia_video-149197(35)
              - multimedia_video-149198(17)
              - multimedia_video-149225(7)
              - multimedia_webcam(22)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(16)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(41)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149208(6)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - documents_file-149214(6)
              - documents_file-149216(4)
              - documents_file-149217(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(10)
              - documents_file-149222(3)
              - news_news-149245(99)
              - news_news-149246(8)
              - news_news-149248(28)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(51)
              - news_newsletters(17)
              - news_other_news(101)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(104)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(55)

## By Location

## By Year

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for Alaska Flood Observation Facebook Group

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for DGGS Photo Database of Flooding in Alaska

MOUs        December 15, 2016        MOU between USGS and FEMA - framework (replaces 2011)
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Un ited States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1500

___________ George Gadd, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America; Eric H. * Holder, Jr., Attorney General, * United States Department of * Justice; Michele M. Leonhart, * Acting Administrator, Drug * Enforcement Administration, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 30, 2010 Filed: September 3, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. George Gadd appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil action. In his complaint, as subsequently amended, Gadd asserted claims-2- of failure to accommodate a disability, and retaliation, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, 791, and 794; failure to maintain records, improper disclosure of medical records, and failu re to produce records upon request, under the Right to Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; a nd failure to produce records, under the Freedom of Information Act (FO IA). On appeal, Gadd argue s that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, and hechallenges the cour t’s denial of his motions to reconsider and for recusal, and its handling of the record and his discoveryrelated requests.
After careful de novo review, viewing the evidence and all fair inferences from it in the light most favorable to Gadd, see Buboltz v. Residential Advantages, Inc. , 523 F.3d 864, 867-68 (8th Cir. 2008), we conclu de that summary judgment was proper. In addition, we conclude that the districtcourt did not abuse its discretion in denying Gadd’s motion to reconsider, see Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan , 462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood , 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion), in denying his recusal motion, see Neal v. Wilson , 112 F.3d 351, 357 & n.6 (8th Cir. 1997) (disapproving decision to wait until district judge had issued unfavorable ruling before moving for recusal), in maintaining certain record documents under seal, cf. Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v. Fisher Foods, Inc. , 823 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1987) (request to lift or modify order sealing documents is left to sound discretion of trial court), or in handling discovery-rela ted matters, see Sheets v. Butera , 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 2004) (revi ew of discovery rulings is very deferential; rulings generally will not be overturned absent gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_data(6)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(21)
              - products_web_tools(3)
              - multimedia_image(12)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141771(12)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(4)
              - multimedia_video-149195(4)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(3)
              - arkansas(9)
              - california(17)
              - colorado(7)
              - (-)connecticut(12)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(9)
              - georgia(7)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(17)
              - iowa(5)
              - kansas(5)
              - louisiana(34)
              - maine(12)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(11)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(2)
              - missouri(12)
              - montana(13)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(1)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(6)
              - new mexico(3)
              - new york(14)
              - north carolina(10)
              - north dakota(35)
              - ohio(20)
              - oklahoma(5)
              - oregon(3)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(29)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(42)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(37)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(18)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Photography        January 17, 2022        Coastal flooding in southern New England during a storm event

Photography        November 2, 2012        Hurricane Sandy flooding damages Connecticut sidewalk

Photography        November 1, 2012        Hurricane Sandy Flooding in Fairfield County, Connecticut

Photography        December 18, 2023        Streamgage inspection during rain event

Photography        November 21, 2019        Housatonic channel measurements

Photography        February 4, 2022        An ice jam on the Quinebaug River, Connecticut

Photography        November 1, 2012        Sand-covered Picnic Tables on Connecticut Beach after Hurricane Sandy

Photography        July 16, 2019        Hiking in to the survey site

Photography        July 16, 2019        Setting up a total station on the edge of a field

Photography        November 1, 2012        Hurricane Sandy High Water Mark

Photography        November 19, 2019        Surveying a bridge in Connecticut

Photography        August 7, 2019        Surveying at the Tide Gage in Connecticut
Exhibit
      32.2


Chief
      Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18U.S.C.,SECTION
      1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Kenneth Faith, the undersigned Chief Financial
      Officer of Nuclear Solutions, Inc., (the “Company”), herby certify that, to the
      best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
      the
      period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. A signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Dated
                August 20, 2007.
            /s/
                Kenneth FaithCFO
J.S., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1103

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*240Affirmed. *I.B. v. State*, 239 So.3d 773, 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ("We review *de novo* the trial court's denial of a judgment of dismissal, ... and consider the evidence presented, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to the State, to determine whether substantial competent evidence supports the trial court's determinations.") (citation omitted) ; *R.I. v. State*, 561 So.2d 26, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("We find that the trial court was in a better position to evaluate the conduct and credibility of the witnesses, and that the record demonstrates competent substantial evidence to support the adjudication of delinquency.").
Leslie HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Tommy FORD, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Bay County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-922

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 16, 2019

Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert Wayne Evans and Jack O. Hackett, III, of Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Wetherell and Winsor, JJ., concur.
KENNER FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1427, IAFF, et al. v. The CITY OF KENNER

NO. 2018-CC-1873

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 132753 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132753 COA: 269800 Calhoun CC: 02-004403-FC LEE DEVORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
Avonte Treshawn VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 12.1****Certification**I, Chang Xiaobing, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Unicom Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date: June 29, 2007 By: /s/ Chang Xiaobing    Name:  Chang Xiaobing    Title: Chief Executive Officer