alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60682

Summary Calendar

CLIFFORD J. CORMIER,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

BOKENCAMP DRILLING COMPANY, INC.; LOUISIANA

INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR,

Respondents.

Appeal from the Benefits Review Board,

United States Department of Labor

(94-2490)

April 30, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Clifford J. Cormier petitions this court for review of an

order by the Benefits Review Board of the United States Department

of Labor, arguing that attorney’s fees awarded in connection with2

a claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act,

33 U.S.C. §§ 901 et al.

, should have been awarded at the submitted

hourly rate of $150 rather than the awarded rate of $95 per hour.

Under 33 U.S.C. § 928(a), a successful claimant “shall be

awarded a reasonable atto rney’s fee.” As a fact-intensive

decision, we review such a decision for its adherence to the

subs tantial evidence standard. S ee Boland Marine & Mfg. Co. v.

Rihner, 41 F.3d 997, 1002 (5th Cir. 1995) ; Metro. Stevedore Co. v.

Brickner , 11 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1993). Substantial evidence

is evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.” Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director,

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

, 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th

Cir. 1993). In our review, we typically defer to the decisionmaker’s credibility choices among witnesses and evidence. Id.

The District Director’s decision regarding attorney’s fees

relied on a previously submitted fee application for work done in

which the attorney listed his hourly rate at $95. In that

application, the attorney explained the rate as comparable to the

rate charged in the community and one previously utilized by that

tribunal. It is now argued that such reliance was improper because

that hourly figure was submitted in connection with a proposed

settlement and the attorney had reduced his hourly rate for

purposes of settlement. However, there is nothing in the record

supporting such a contention. In fact, in the application for the3

fees at issue here, the attorney provided no explanation whatsoever

for the significant increase from $95 to $150 in his claimed hourly

rate.

The petitioner does not even allege that the fees awarded were

“unreasonable,” but rather that they were not the fees as submitted

and that there is some support for awarding the submitted fee

request. All that we require in order to affirm is that the fees

be “reasonable,” see 33 U.S.C. § 928(a), as demonstrated by

evidence that a “reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” S ee

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. , 991 F.2d at 165. Finding such to be

the case and employing our customary deference to the fact-finder,

we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Benefits Review Board’s order.
Minute Oider Foren (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

nurobet of notices

DEC 84 200

sate docket

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

Docketing to mail notices

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
deputy’s.
initials - —
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Mice

rang denty inh \

Name of Assigned Judge iche Q Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 CR 1092 DATE 11/18/2003
CASE United States vs. Daniel E. Von Loh
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the moliun, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintifl, and (b) stale bricfly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented ]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(QQ) 0 Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion duc . Reply to answer brief duc. .
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Q Status hearing| hcld/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on __—_ set for at .
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on al
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Qa ‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OrRCP4(m) Cl Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) Cl FRCP41{a)(2).
qo @ [Other docket entry] Arrest warrant issued as to Daniel E. Von Loh.
ay a [For further detail sce order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order. ]
No notices required, advised in open cow't. ‘Dicument
VY. | Nonotices required, “Nuraber.

v
#### SEEBECK, Respondent, v. PUCCI, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 31, 1896.)

Action by Nicholas F. Seebeck against Antonio G. Pucci.

Ezekiel Fixman, for appellant.

Leo G. Rosenblatt, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from must be affirmed. It restrained the defendant only from blasting rock on the land adjoining the plaintiff’s house and lot in such a way as to throw pieces or fragments of the rock excavated upon or against the plaintiff’s walls. There was a question of fact involved, and, on the conflicting affidavits, the court was justified in adopting the plaintiff’s statements, and did so. The injunction as finally allowed did not restrain the defendant from continuing the work of blasting, nor interrupt his business, but only enjoined him from conducting that business in one particular prohibited way. The order' is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.
  /s/ CURTIS SMITHCurtis SmithChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### FOX v. DE GRAAF.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Action by Margaret Fox against Mary P. De Graaf.

Albert R. Genet, for appellant.

John Gibney, for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought to recover for the board of Robert De Graaf under the contract with the defendant’s testator. The agreement was established, and the report is sustained by proof, and no question of law is involved. Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
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
 Plant Stress and Germplasm Development Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Projects
                        NP 301Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Lubbock, Texas Cropping Systems Research Laboratory Plant Stress and Germplasm Development Research People & Locations







Ava  Hays
                        Plant Stress and Germplasm Development Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Aid (Plants)
                        Phone: (806) 749-5560
                        
                        
                        Fax: (806) 723-5272(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.9D Amendment No. 4 to
Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives
Share Option Plan WHEREAS, the Cenex Harvest States Share Option Plan (the Plan) was adopted by
the Company effective January 1, 1998 and was amended on August 31, 1998, May
2, 2001, and June 4, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Committee for the Plan has recommended to the Board that the Plan
be amended to reflect the change in the name of the Company from Cenex Harvest
States Cooperatives to CHS Inc., which was effective as of August 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, Section 5.1 of the Plan provides that the Board may amend the Plan in
whole, or in part. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan is amended, effective as of
August 5, 2003, as follows:  I.
    
    Section 2.5of the Plan is amended to read as the following: 2.5 Committeemeans the CHS Inc. Share Option Plan Committee
appointed in accordance with Section 6.1.  2.
    
    Section 2.6 of the Plan is amended to read as the following: 2.6 Disabilitymeans that the Participant has been determined to
be disabled under the provision of the CHS Inc. Long Term Disability Plan
(formerly known as the Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives Long Term
Disability Plan).  3.
    
    Section 2.9 of the Plan is amended to read as the following: 2.9 Employermeans CHS Inc. (formerly known as Cenex Harvest
States Cooperatives), and any successor thereto, and any affiliated
entity that is related to the Employer pursuant to the rules under Code
sections 414(b), (c), or (d) and the regulations thereunder, which adopts
the Plan as a participating Employer.  4.
    
    Section 2.19 of the Plan is amended to read as the following: 2.19 Planmeans the CHS Inc. Share Option Plan (formerly known as
the Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives Share Option Plan), as set forth
herein and from time to time amended.




---



##### 



RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the
Committee for the Plan are authorized and empowered to take any and all
additional actions to implement the aforesaid resolutions. Adopted: 04/06/04 CHS INC.By:
    s/ John SchmitzJohn SchmitzIts Executive Vice President and CFO
Independent Auditors' Report



Members of the Partnership
U.S. Realty Income Partners, L.P.
Nashville, Tennessee


We have audited the balance sheets of U.S. Realty Income
Partners, L.P. (a limited partnership) (the Partnership) as
of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related statements of
income, partnership equity, and cash flows for the years
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000.  The financial
statements are the responsibility of the Partnership's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of
America.  Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements.  An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made
by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide
a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of U.S. Realty Income Partners, L.P. as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the years ended December
31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.



                     s/n Dempsey Vantrease & Follis PLLC

February 4, 2003
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
#### George Ney, Respondent, *v.*The City of Troy, Appellant.

(Argued June 19, 1890;

decided October 7, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made December 8, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*629
      *R. A. Parmenter*for appellant.

*Charles E. Patterson*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of China Digital Media
      Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Ng
      Chi Shing, Chief Executive Officer, and Li Wa Tat, Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certify that:




*
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




*
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/
      Ng
      Chi Shing


Ng
      Chi
      Shing


Director,
      President and Chief Executive Officer





March
      23,
      2007





/s/
      Li
      Wa Tat Benedict


Li
      Wa Tat
      Benedict


Chief
      Financial Officer





March
      23,
      2007




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         3886782
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       153887583
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                120000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   61015149
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        61944363
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          61015149
<LOANS>                                      123988599
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (1186961)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               198958106
<DEPOSITS>                                   176976082
<SHORT-TERM>                                   3150000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1321473
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5820148
<OTHER-SE>                                    15015417
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               198958106
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                7457919
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2713328
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                190747
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              10361994
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4794668
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               32308
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          5535013
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   275000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 181
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4258732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2123540
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     2123540
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1554891
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.74
<LOANS-NON>                                      38961
<LOANS-PAST>                                    540923
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1011935
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   112935
<RECOVERIES>                                     12962
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1186961
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1186961
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0




</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 15, 2009 

Order 

 

September 15, 2009 

137453(228) 

DANIEL ADAIR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 SC: 137453 

v COA: 230858 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiffs-appellees for extension to 

July 16, 2009 of the time for filing their brief is considered and it is GRANTED.
**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 Kaire Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Randy
        Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Randy
        Jones
 Randy
        Jones
 Acting
        Chief Financial Officer
 June
        8,
        2005
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40799 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS MARTINEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-162-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carlos Martinez-Estrada appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Martinez-Estrada contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Martinez-Estrada maintains thatNo. 03-40799 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Martinez-Estrada acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.