alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BENJAMIN PARKER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-01-91) Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 9, 2003 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin Parker appeals the district court’s order resentencing him, upon remand from this court, to sixty months imprisonment for his conviction following a guilty plea to distribution of cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Parker’s counsel raises as an issue the calculation of Parker’s sentence. Parker was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. Parker pled guilty to distribution of between five and fifty grams of cocaine and cocaine base. Accordingly, he was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of five years regardless of any recommendation of the sentencing guidelines. See § 841(b)(1)(B). Because the sentence imposed by the district court was the minimum sentence allowed by law, we find no error. We have reviewed the record in accordance with Andersand find no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 that 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 a3 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
**Exhibit 12.02**

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G. Howitt certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 20-F of Genetic Technologies Limited;

2.             Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made and, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, is not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.             The Company’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this reportany change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5.             The Company’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 21st, 2006
|   | /s/Thomas G. Howitt   |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|
|   |                  |
|   | **Thomas  G. Howitt** |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 302 has been provided to Genetic Technologies Limited and will beretained by Genetic Technologies Limited and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Environmental Microbial & Food Safety Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About Us
                        Mission, Facilities, and Expertise
                                    Five Appropriated Projects
                                    Research Staff (by project group)Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Environmental Microbial & Food Safety Laboratory People







Insuck  Baek    Research Mechanical Engineer


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Re t.), Sev enth Co urt of A ppe als, sitting by as sign me nt. Tex. Gov’ t Code

An n. §7 5.00 2(a)(1 ) (Ve rnon Su pp. 2 004 ). NO. 07-04-0247-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E AUGUST 10, 2004

______________________________ KIM W. GATEWOOD,

Appellant
v. THE STA

TE OF TEX

AS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2003-485,577; HON. DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING

_______________________________ ABATEMENT AND RE MAND

_______________________________ Before QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. 1 Appellant

Kim W. Gatewood appeals from a judg m ent convicting him of false identification as a peace officer. The reporter’s record is due i n this cause, and an extension of the applicable deadline has been sou ght. To ju stify the extensi on, the co urt reporte r represen ts that ap pellant has fail ed to pay or make a rrangemen ts to pay for th e record. N othing of record i llustrate s whethe r appell ant is in digent.2

Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the Co unty Court atLaw No. 2 of Lubb ock Coun ty(trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall i mmediatel y cause n oti ce of a hearin g to be g iven and , thereafter, condu ct a hearing to determi ne the fo llowing : 1. wheth er appel lant des ires to p rosecute the appe al; 2. wheth er appel lant is i ndigent; and, 3. whether the appellant is entitled to appo inted counsel and a free appellate record. The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed
a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it mayissue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be developed
a supplemental reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing. Should it be determined that ap pellantwishes to prosec ute the appeal, is indi gent, and is entit led to an appointed attorney, then the trial court shall appoint counsel, unless appellant knowingly and vo luntarily waives counsel. Further mo re, the name, address, and pho ne numbe r of any counsel a ppointed by the tri al court to represent appella nt shall be incl uded in the suppl emental r ecord. Th e trial court shal l also fi le both supplemental records with the clerk of this court on or before September 9, 2004. S hould further time be n eeded by

the trial court toperform these tasks, then it must be requested before Se ptember 9 , 2004. It is so ordere d. Per C uriam Do not publish.
##### 



EXHIBIT 3.2
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
 BY-LAWS
 OF
 ALION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
(A Delaware Corporation)




---



##### 



AMENDED AND RESTATED
 BY-LAWS
 OF
 ALION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
 ARTICLE I
 OFFICES
  (Rev. 06/04/02)
 ARTICLE II
 STOCKHOLDERS
   -2-




---



##### 



(Rev. 06/04/02)
    -3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 DIRECTORS
 (Rev. 11/14/02)
  -5-




---



##### 



(Rev. 06/04/02)
   provided however
  -6-




---



##### 



(Rev. 11/14/02)
    -7-




---



##### 



-8-




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
 OFFICERS
 (Rev. 09/13/05)
   -9-




---



##### 



(Rev. 11/14/02)
 (Rev. 06/04/02)
   -10-




---



##### 



(Rev. 09/13/05)
 (Rev. 09/13/05)
 (Rev.
09/13/05)
  -11-




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 CERTIFICATES OF STOCK
  -12-




---



##### 



-13-




---



##### 



-14-




---



##### 



Share transfers must be consistent with S election. ab initio
 Approval needed for share transfers
 Exceptions
  -15-




---



##### 



Rules and Regulations (Rev. 11/14/02)
 ab initio (Rev. 11/14/02)
 -16-




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
 OWNERSHIP OF SHARES
 (Rev. 11/14/02)
 ARTICLE VII
 CONTRACT AND CHECKS
   ARTICLE VIII
 DIVIDENDS
 -17-




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX
 FISCAL YEAR
  ARTICLE X
 WAIVER OF NOTICE
  -18-




---



##### 



ARTICLE XI
 SEAL
  ARTICLE XII
 INDEMNIFICATION
  -19-




---



##### 



-20-




---



##### 



-21-




---



##### 



ARTICLE XIII
 AMENDMENTS
 provided however
 -22-




---



##### 



-23-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHAD McKINNEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-677 PS

 )

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the habeas corpus petition of Plaintiff Chad McKinney,

a pro se prisoner, challenging his prison disciplinary proceeding at the Indiana State Prison on

May 31, 2011, where he was found guilty of Possessing Unauthorized Property in violation of B215 (DE 1). On September 5, 2013, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that these

claims are unexhausted because McKinney did not appeal to the Final Reviewing Authority and

has provided the administrative record proving that McKinney did not appeal beyond the

Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison. I waited for a response from McKinney, but he did

not respond. So on November 9, 2013, I granted the motion to dismiss because in Indiana, “to

exhaust a claim [in a prison disciplinary case], and thus preserve it for collateral review under §

2254, a prisoner must present that legal theory to the . . . Final Reviewing Authority . . ..” Moffat

v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002). However, on November 20, 2013, McKinney

asked to reopen the case so that he could respond. In the interests of justice, I granted him until

January 16, 2014, to do so. I also cautioned him that if he did not respond by that deadline, that I

would dismiss this case without further notice. That deadline has now passed without a response.

Therefore, because the undisputed record shows that McKinney did not file an administrative
appeal to the Final Reviewing Authority, all of his grounds are procedurally defaulted. See Lewis

v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004).

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss (DE 4) is GRANTED, the habeas

corpus petition (DE 1) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 13, 2014

s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument, and therefore denies Washington’s request for oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSE WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. FANNON; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-17530

D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01317-MCEGGH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2011**

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Jesse Washington, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have

FILED

APR 27 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17530

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

district court’s evidentiary rulings. Tritchler v. Cnty. of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155

(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding witnesses who

were not identified in Washington’s original pretrial statement because the topics

upon which he alleged they would testify were not relevant. See Fed. R. Evid 402

(“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”). To the extent that Dr.

Rosenberg’s testimony may have been relevant, the district court properly

exercised its discretion because the nature of that testimony should have been

anticipated prior to the pretrial conference, and therefore should have been

included in Washington’s pretrial statement pursuant to the court’s previous order. 

See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (“‘Trial

courts have broad authority to impose reasonable time limits.’” (citation omitted)). 

Contrary to Washington’s contention, defendants were not judicially

estopped from denying the use of excessive force based on testimony by another

person in another case concerning different events. See Hamilton v. State Farm

Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining doctrine of

judicial estoppel). 
3 09-17530

Washington’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
Order entered January 6, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00702-CR

TERRISH JERMAINE GARMON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-34332-J

ORDER

The reporter’s record filed in this case consists of five volumes. However, they are 

labeled to indicate that they are part of a seven-volume record. Moreover, none of the exhibits 

were filed with the record.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS court reporters Kimberly Xavier and Kelly Bryant to 

file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, volumes six and seven of the reporter’s 

record, including all exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Kimberly Xavier, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 3; court reporter Kelly 

Bryant; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RICHARD N. GARRIES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00069-HCM-TEM-1) 

Submitted: January 28, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lawrence H. Woodward, Jr., SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & 

MORECOCK, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. 

MacBride, United States Attorney, Robert J. Seidel, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Richard N. Garries was convicted of one count of wire 

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1342 (2006). While serving 

his three-year term of supervised release, Garries engaged in 

conduct which resulted in his conviction on twenty-four felony 

counts involving fraud, money laundering, false statements, and 

structuring financial transactions. Based on these convictions, 

in conjunction with other related violations of his supervised 

release, the district court revoked Garries’ supervised release 

and imposed a twenty-four-month sentence for nine violations of 

supervised release. Garries appeals this sentence, arguing that 

the district court erred by sentencing him beyond his six-totwelve-month advisory sentencing range. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm. 

 We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory 

range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 

461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). District courts ultimately 

have broad discretion to revoke a previous sentence and impose a 

term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 439. 

Here, the district court imposed the maximum sentence, noting 

that Garries’ testimony at the revocation hearing was 

“unbelievable,” “incredible,” and “preposterous.” (JA 102). 

We do not review credibility determinations on appeal, Glasser 

2 
3 

v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), and find that Garries’ 

sentence was not plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437. 

 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
#### WYNKOOP-HALLENBECK-CRAWFORD CO., Respondent, v. HUYLER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

Action by the Wynkoop-Hallenbeck-Crawford Company against Frank De K. Huyler and others. E. L. Mooney, for appellants. L. J. Wolff, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of DakotaGrowers Pasta Company, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended July 31,2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and thatinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

Date:October 29, 2009

 
|   | /s/  Timothy J. Dodd                     |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                     |
|   | Timothy  J. Dodd                         |
|   | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
#### KENEN, Respondent, v. SUPERIOR AXLE & FORGE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by Leonard C. Kenen against the Superior Axle & Forge Company. No opinion. Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs.
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC.

DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT

FOR

ANTHONY ROSBACK




Effective March 23, 2015, Anthony Rosback will become Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of
AmeriGas Propane, Inc., the general partner of AmeriGas Partners, L.P. Mr. Rosback has an oral
agreement with AmeriGas Propane, Inc. which includes the following:



Mr. Rosback:




	 	1.	 	is entitled to an annual base salary of $360,000, effective March 23, 2015 (which will
be prorated based on his commencement of employment with AmeriGas Propane, Inc. on March
23, 2015);






	 	2.	 	will participate in AmeriGas Propane, Inc.’s annual bonus plan, with bonus payable
based on the achievement of pre-approved financial and/or business performance objectives,
which support business plans and strategic goals;






	 	3.	 	will participate in AmeriGas Propane, Inc.’s long-term compensation plan, the 2010
Long-Term Incentive Plan, with annual awards as determined by the Compensation/Pension
Committee, and UGI Corporation’s 2013 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, with annual
awards as determined by the UGI Corporation Compensation and Management Development
Committee;






	 	4.	 	will receive cash benefits upon termination of his employment without cause following a
change in control of AmeriGas Propane, Inc., AmeriGas Partners, L.P. or UGI Corporation;
and






	 	5.	 	will participate in AmeriGas Propane, Inc.’s benefit plans, including the AmeriGas
Propane, Inc. Senior Executive Employee Severance Plan and the AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.