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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6931

MARC S. CASON, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

M.D.P.S.C.S.; CMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(1:08-cv-01024-CCB)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc S. Cason, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Although the district court’s order indicates that its

dismissal constituted Cason’s third PLRA strike, a review of

Cason’s numerous lawsuits reveals that Cason was previously issued

three strikes. See Cason v. Weeks, No. 08-cv-00946-CCB (D. Md. May

7, 2008), aff’d, No. 08-6839 (4th Cir. July 28, 2008) (third

strike); Cason v. Maryland Div. of Corr., No. 06-cv-2032 (D. Md.

filed Aug. 21, 2006; entered Aug. 22, 2006) (second strike); Cason

v. Maryland Div. of Parole and Probation, No. 06-cv-1186 (D. Md.

May 17, 2006) (first strike).

2

PER CURIAM:

Marc S. Cason appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101-12213 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Cason v. M.D.P.S.C.S., No. 1:08-cv-01024-

CCB (D. Md. May 9, 2008). Because the district court’s dismissal

was Cason’s fourth strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000) (“PLRA”),1 Cason may not proceed in forma

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g) (2000). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1287 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1287

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 312 East North Avenue in Flora, Illinois, as the ``Robert T. 
                    Ferguson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT T. FERGUSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 312 East North Avenue in Flora, Illinois, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert T. Ferguson Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert T. 
Ferguson Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 19 
      (legislative day, December 18), 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1287

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 312 East North Avenue in Flora, Illinois, as the ``Robert T. 
                    Ferguson Post Office Building''.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11587]



[[Page 25242]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Committee Name: National Institute of General Medical Sciences 
Special Emphasis Panel--Minority Access to Research Careers.
    Date: May 17.
    Time: 2 p.m.--adjournment.
    Place: National Institutes of Health (TELECONFERENCE) 45 Center 
Drive, Room 1AS-13F Bethesda, MD 20892-6200.
    Contact Person: Dr. Helen Sunshine, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIGMS, 45 Center Drive, Room 1AS-13F, Bethesda, MD 
20892-6200.
    Purpose: To review MARC Conference grant.

    This meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. The 
discussions of these applications could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications, 
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion 
of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to the 
first meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed 
by the grant review cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.821, 
Biophysics and Physiological Sciences; 93.859, Pharmacological 
Sciences; 93.862, Genetics Research; 93.863, Cellular and Molecular 
Basis of Disease Research; 93.880, Minority Access Research Careers 
[MARC]; and 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support [MBRS].)

    Dated: May 5, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-11587 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Laura A. JENNINGS, petitioner, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, et al.

No. 12-9069.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 1164   Filed 08/11/17   Page 1 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 1164   Filed 08/11/17   Page 2 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 1164   Filed 08/11/17   Page 3 of 4

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 1164   Filed 08/11/17   Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 10.4


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
THE

QUANEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN


 


THIS
AGREEMENT by Quanex Corporation (the “Sponsor”),


 


W I T N E S S E T
H:


 


WHEREAS,
the Sponsor previously established the Quanex Corporation Employee Savings
Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2002 (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS,
the Sponsor reserved the right in Section 12.01 to amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Sponsor has determined to amend the Plan;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Sponsor hereby agrees that effective
January 1, 2004, the Plan is amended as set forth below:


 


1.               Section 1.19
of the Plan is completely amended and restated as follows:


 


1.19         “Eligible Employee”
means an Employee who (a) is classified by the Sponsor as (1) working
at the Sponsor’s Corporate Office in Houston, Texas; (2) working at or for
the Sponsor’s MACSTEEL group office in Jackson, Michigan and compensated on a
salaried basis; (3) working at or for the Sponsor’s MACSTEEL operating
unit in Jackson, Michigan and compensated on a salaried basis; (4) working
at or for the Sponsor’s MACSTEEL operating unit in Fort Smith, Arkansas and
compensated on a salaried basis; or (5) working at or for the Sponsor’s
MACSTEEL Heat Treating operating unit in Huntington, Indiana; or (b) an
Employee of MacSteel Monroe, Inc. and compensated on a salaried basis.


 


2.               Article V of the
Plan is amended by adding the following new Section 5.14 to the Plan:


 


5.14         Loans.  No loans shall be made to Participants under
the Plan.  If (a) a Participant was
a participant in the Cargill Partnership Plan on December 31, 2003, and
had a loan outstanding under the Cargill Partnership Plan on December 31,
2003, and (b) the loan note and all other rights with respect to such loan
held by or for the Cargill Partnership Plan are rolled over to the Plan, then
such loan shall be continued under the Plan, and shall be administered under
the terms and provisions applicable to the loan under the loan agreement and
the Cargill Partnership Plan documents applicable to such loan in effect as of
December 31, 2003.


 

















 


3.               Article
IX of the Plan is amended by adding the following new Section 9.07 to the
Plan:


 


9.07         Credit for Service With North Star Steel Company.  For purposes of determining an Employee’s
Active Service for eligibility to participate and vesting, his service with
North Star Steel Company, a Minnesota corporation, and any predecessor will be
counted as Active Service under the Plan.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Sponsor has caused this Agreement to be executed on this
              
day of December, 2003.


 


	
   

  	
  QUANEX CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1416 

To repeal the reduction in Medicare payment for therapeutic shoes and 

inserts for individuals with diabetes effected by section 627 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mrs. MCCARTHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the reduction in Medicare payment for therapeutic 

shoes and inserts for individuals with diabetes effected 

by section 627 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Diabetic 

5 Footwear Quality Restoration Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1416 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE REDUCTION IN MEDICARE PAY2 MENT FOR ORTHOPEDIC SHOES AND IN3 SERTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DIABETES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 627(c) of the Medicare 

5 Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act 

6 of 2003 (Public Law 108–173) is amended by inserting 

7 ‘‘, and before January 1, 2006’’ after ‘‘January 1, 2005’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING LAW.—For items furnished on and 

9 after January 1, 2006, the provisions of sections 1833(o), 

10 1834(h)(4)(C), and 1842(s)(2) of the Social Security Act 

11 (42 U.S.C. 1395l(o), 1395m(h)(4)(C), 1395u(s)(2)) shall 

12 be restored as if the amendments made by subsections (a) 

13 and (b) of section 627 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 

14 Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

15 108–173) had not been enacted. 

Æ
Charles ADAMS, et al., petitioners, v. RAINTREE VACATION EXCHANGE, LLC, et al.

No. 12-1288.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

*2863Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Neelam T. UPPAL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D19-1799

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 05, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Dwayne DAVIS, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-9618.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6154

PATRICK EDWIN RUDD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, CUMBERLAND;

WARDEN HENRY; CAPTAIN EY; LIEUTENANT THOMPSON;

MR. CROSS, Unit Manager; MR. PERDUE, Counselor; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION-ELKTON;

WARDEN LAMANNA; CAPTAIN BRIGGS; DIXON,

I.S.M.C.; LIEUTENANT HOAGLUND,

Respondents - Appellees.

_________________________

R. E. WASHINGTON,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98-

3737-AMD)

Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

December 9, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on December 10, 1998. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet

that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

Patrick Edwin Rudd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Edwin Rudd appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Rudd v. FCI Cumberland, No. CA-98-3737-AMD (D. Md. Dec.

10, 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.

AFFIRMED
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter 

# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v. GERALD T. RICH, JR., Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge ]

Before Thompson, Selya and Kayatta, Circuit Judges
.
Mary Davis and Tisdale & Davis, P.A. on brief for appellant. Thomas E. Delahanty II , United States Attorney, and Renée M. Bunker , Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

January 12, 2015**Per curiam .**  After defendant-appellant Gerald T. Rich, Jr. pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, see21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and making false statements to federal agents, see 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), the district court sentenced him to a 72-month term of immurement on the drug-trafficking count and a concurrent 60-month term of immurement on the false statement count. Rich appeals, asserting only that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. There is no reason to tarry. We have carefully reviewed the plea agreement, the change-of-plea colloquy, the undisputed portions of the presentence investigation report, and the transcript of the disposition hearing. See United States v. Almonte-Nuñez , 771 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2014). We are fully satisfied that the district court's sentence, which was 25 months below the bottom of a properly calculated guideline sentencing range, was substantively reasonable. See United States v. King , 741 F.3d 305, 310 (1st Cir. 2014) ("It is a rare below-t he-range sentence that will prove vulnerable to a defendant's claim of substantive unreasonableness."). In the mine-run of criminal cases, there is no single appropriate sentence but, rather, a universe of reasonable sentences. SeeUnited States v. Walker , 665 F.3d 212, 234 (1st Cir. 2011). The sentence imposed in this case falls squarely within this universe.

-2-Here, moreover, the district court made a thorough and meticulous appraisal of Rich's personal history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offenses of conviction, and other factors relevant to sentencing. The court explicated a plausible rationale for the sentence imposed and reached an eminently fair result. No more was exigible to defeat a claim of substantive unreasonableness. See United States v. Martin , 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. JiménezBeltre , 440 F.3d 514, 519 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc). We need go no further. Appellate courts should not write at length to know other end than to hear their own words resonate. SeedeBenedictis v. Brady-Zell (In re Brady-Zell ), 756 F.3d 69, 71 (1st Cir. 2014). Because Rich's appeal is patently meritless, we say no more. Instead, we summarily affirm Rich's sentence. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

**Affirmed .** 

-3-
你希望廚房中出現以下這些人員嗎?

腹瀉 嘔吐

發燒、喉嚨痛 黃疸病

為維護大眾健康,生病時

請待在家中休息。

那為何生病時仍照常上班?
你希望廚房中出現以下這些人員嗎?

腹瀉 嘔吐

發燒、喉嚨痛 黃疸病

為維護大眾健康,生病時

請待在家中休息。

那為何生病時仍照常上班?
你希望廚房中出現以下這些人員嗎?

腹瀉 嘔吐

發燒、喉嚨痛 黃疸病

為維護大眾健康,生病時

請待在家中休息。

那為何生病時仍照常上班?
你希望廚房中出現以下這些人員嗎?

腹瀉 嘔吐

發燒、喉嚨痛 黃疸病

為維護大眾健康,生病時

請待在家中休息。

那為何生病時仍照常上班?
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Parallel Technologies, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          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 Parallel  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn
A. Little,  Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: July 21, 2005                           By: /s/ Glenn A. Little
      -------------                              -------------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Parallel  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Parallel
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0526n.06 No. 12-5763 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T

In re: WI L L I AM W. P I ERCE, J R.,

Debtor, MAXI E E. HI GGASON, JR., CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. VANDE RBI L T MORTGAGE A ND FI NANCE, I

NC., Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY
OPI NI ON

Be fore : MOORE, SUTTON, and D ONAL D, Circuit J udg es.
Bernice B. Donald, Circuit Judge. Maxi e E. Hig g ason, J r., a Chapter 7 Trustee , broug ht a st rong -ar

m proce eding ag ainst Appellant Vanderbilt Mortg ag e and F inance , Inc. (Vander bilt) to avoid a lien claimed by Vande rbilt ag ainst Wil liam W. Pierce , J r.’s manufa cture d home. Vande rbilt failed to file its Certi fi cate of Title in Pierce ’s county of residenc e, but instead filed it in its own county of residenc e. We quite rec ently confr onted virtually identical fac tual and l egal issues in Vanderbilt Mortg. &Fin., Inc. v . W estenhoe fer , No. 11-6216, (6th Cir. Mar ch ___, 2013). There

we conclude d that a Certificate of Title must be filed in the debtor’s county of residenc e in order to be prope rly

perf ecte d under K entucky

law. On the ba sis of that decision, we AF F IRM

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                       TO

                     THE AMETEK RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN
               (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2002)

         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of October 1, 1984,
The AMETEK Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety, effective
January 1, 2002;

         WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time, and from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan to (1) clarify the
authority of AMETEK to merge, consolidate or transfer assets held on behalf of
Participants and their Beneficiaries from or to another plan meeting the
requirements of Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
and (2) increase the limit on catch-up contributions from 50% of a participant's
compensation to 75% of a participant's compensation.

         NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

                  FIRST: Section 10.6 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

                  "10.6 Merger of Plan. Pursuant to action of the Board of
Directors, the Plan may be merged or consolidated with, or a portion of its
assets and liabilities may be transferred to, another plan meeting the
requirements of Section 401(a) of the Code or any successor provision of law, or
a portion of the assets and liabilities of another such plan may be transferred
to the Plan, provided such merger, consolidation or transfer is accompanied by a
transfer of such existing records and information as may be necessary to
properly allocate such assets among Participants and to provide any tax or other
necessary information to the persons administering the Plan or receiving the
assets, and further provided that each Participant or Beneficiary shall be
entitled to receive a benefit immediately after such merger, consolidation or
transfer if this Plan or such other plan were then terminated which is at least
equal to the benefit the Participant or Beneficiary would have been entitled to
receive immediately before such merger, consolidation or transfer if this Plan
or such other plan had been terminated."

                  SECOND: Section 4.1(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by
replacing the phrase "and not more than 50 percent (50%) of his Compensation"
with the phrase "and not more than 75 percent (75%) of his Compensation."

                  THIRD: The provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall be
effective as of January 1, 2004.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused this Amendment to be executed, in
its corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this 10th day of December,
2003.

                                                AMETEK, Inc.

                                                By: /s/ John J. Molinelli
                                                   ----------------------

Attest: /s/ Kathryn E. Londra
Durwyn MANCILL, petitioner, v. Myron E. FREEMAN, Warden, et al.

No. 12-6794.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *McQuiggin v. Perkins,* 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013).