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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10726 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, and DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC., Intervenor-Appellant,

versus JOSEPH EDWARD CHAVIS, JR., Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CR-015-P

- - - - - - - - - - March 20, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joseph Edward Chavis, Jr. was convicted for robbing a federally insured bank. The district court originally sealed Chavis’s combined motion for downward departure based upon “aberrant behavior” and sentencing memorandum with exhibits. The district court subsequently entered its order unsealing aNo. 96-10726 -2- redacted version of Chavis’s motion. The Dallas Morning News, Inc. (the News) appeals this action. “In exercising its discretion to seal judicial records, the court must balance the public’s common law right of access against the interest favoring nondisclosure.” Securities & Exchange Commission v. Van Waeyenberghe , 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court considered the factors weighing in favor of nondisclosure and noted that the case presented no peculiar circumstances which would compel disclosure. The district court’s order is not general in nature, but is very specific to particular information, in one particular document, in this defendant’s sentencing proceeding. The News has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in redacting certain portions of Chavis’s sentencing memorandum. The News invites this court to dispense with the abuse of discretion standard for releasing judicial documents enunciated in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 598-99 (1978). To accept such an invitation would require that Nixon be overruled, which is beyond the power of this court.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         361,990
<SECURITIES>                                   973,024
<RECEIVABLES>                                  595,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,321
<INVENTORY>                                     85,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,177,952
<PP&E>                                       3,010,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                 289,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,557,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,055,446
<BONDS>                                      2,964,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,636
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,049,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,557,611
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,388
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  511,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (166)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,668
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (87,248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (96,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (25,377)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (121,616)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
- Home
- Media Center
- Yearly Press Archive

# 2011  Press Releases

### Appointment of Deputy Chief Thomas P. Reynolds as Assistant Chief of Police

December 30, 2011

###  	  U.S. Capitol Police Host 12th Annual Holiday Party for Savoy Elementary School on Capitol Hill

December 14, 2011

### USCP Receives CALEA Reaccreditation

November 21, 2011

### President Barack Obama’s Address to a Joint Session of Congress

September 7, 2011

### Labor Day Concert at the U.S. Capitol

September 1, 2011

### CALEA Accreditation Assessment Team Invites Public Comment

August 10, 2011

### USCP Sergeant Named Officer of the Year by Capitol Hill Executive Service Club

June 30, 2011

### Capitol Fourth Concert: West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol

June 29, 2011

###  	 Enhanced Security Measures for Memorial Day Concert: West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol

May 26, 2011

### Officer Michael A. Riley Named Officer of the Month by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund

February 9, 2011

-               Current page            1
-               Page            2
- Next page››
- Last pageLast »

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Yearly Archive

                  - 2024               (4)          
                  - 2023               (26)          
                  - 2022               (36)          
                  - 2021               (73)          
                  - 2020               (9)          
                  - 2019               (15)          
                  - 2018               (14)          
                  - 2017               (28)          
                  - 2016               (18)          
                  - 2015               (10)          
                  - 2014               (14)          
                  - 2013               (10)          
                  - 2012               (10)          
                  - 2011               (13)          
                  - 2010               (10)          
                  - 2009               (18)          
                  - 2008               (11)          
                  - 2007               (14)          
                  - 2006               (23)          
                  - 2005               (18)          
                  - 2004               (24)          
                  - 2003               (15)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

 625 INDIANA AVENUE, NW 

SUITE 900

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

 

CHAMBERS OF

CHIEF JUDGE MARGARET BARTLEY

Dear Self-Represented Appellant: 

The Court now has a pilot program that offers you, a self-represented appellant, the opportunity to 

have representation at a Court-mediated conference with VA counsel to discuss early resolution 

of your case. The Court usually conducts these conferences with represented parties, but the pilot 

program will make the services of an experienced volunteer attorney available to you without 

charge (pro bono) for the limited purpose of participating in this conference on your behalf. No 

outcome is guaranteed, but conferences frequently result in agreements that are beneficial to the 

parties. 

This pilot program is being administered by the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. Your 

participation in this program is completely voluntary. If you opt into the program, you will be 

assigned a volunteer attorney who will participate on your behalf in the Court’s conferencing 

process that is described in Rule 33 of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The volunteer 

attorney will not continue to be involved in your case after the conference unless you and the 

attorney decide to continue the relationship and make a separate agreement. 

To opt-in or to get more information about this pilot program, contact the Veterans Consortium 

Pro Bono Program (TVC) at 855-446-9678 or email Rule33Pilot@vetsprobono.org. (If you are 

not interested in participating in this opportunity for early resolution of your case, refer to the 

Instructions for Filing the Informal Brief.) 

Sincerely, 

Margaret Bartley 

Chief Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7451
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADRIAN HOWARD JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-1126-JFA) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adrian Howard Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, 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: Adrian Howard Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion, filed in his criminal case, to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Jackson , No. CR-98-1126-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 2005). 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5419

- 16T3

SERGEY FRADKOV,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATALIA KRONFELD,

Defendant.

__________________________

SNYDER SARNO D'ANIELLO MACERI & DA COSTA, LLC,

Petitioner

- Respondent,

v.

NATALIA KRONFELD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted January 9, 2019

– Decided January 31, 2019

Before Judges Nugent, Reisner and Mawla.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 5419

- 16T3 On appeal from Supe rior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Be rgen County, Docket No. FM

- 02

- 1337

- 13.

Gambourg Law Group, attorneys for appellant (Roman V. Gambourg, of coun sel and on the brief s ).

Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri & Da Costa, LLC, respondent pro se (Angelo Sarno and Scott D. Danaher, of counsel and on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Natalia Kronfeld appeals from a July 14, 2017 order awarding

approxi mately $148,000 in counsel fees to the law firm that represented her in

her divorce action. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the trial

judge. We add t he following brief comments.

First, defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying her motion to

consolidate the attorney fee c l aim with her pending malpractice claim against

the attorneys. Judge Ronny Jo Siegal set forth her reasons for denying

consolidation in oral opinion on June 1, 2016. We agree with Judge Siega l that

the consolidation motion was untimely, having been filed less than a month

before the scheduled plenary hearing on the counsel fees. The attorney fee

motion was filed in June 2015

, and was scheduled to be heard at a plenary

hearing star t ing on June 1, 2016. The malpractice action was not filed until

March 4, 2016, and the consolidation motion was not filed until May 4, 2016.3 A

- 5419

- 16T3

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's decision to deny that motion

as untimely. See Moraes v. Wesler , 43 9 N.J. Super. 375, 378 (App. Div. 2015).

Next, in a p o int consisting of on e paragraph, defendant argues that in

awarding fees, the judge did not address the reasonableness of the amount of

time the attorneys spent on the case. 1 Judge Sieg a l's written opi nion discussed

at length the reasonableness of the time spent. Because defendant failed to file

a statement of facts with relevant citations to the record , we deem the judge's

factual findings about the fee application as uncontested on appeal . Base d on

the facts as the judge found them to be, we find no clear abuse of discretion in

the fee award. See Rendine v. Pantzer , 141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995).

Affirmed.

1 Defendant's entire appellate brief is five pages long and is devoid of relevant citations to the evidentiary record. See R. 2:6

- 2(a)(4) and (5)

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         001043274  
<NAME>                        Westower Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         9,331,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,289,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,151,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,228,000
<PP&E>                                         9,136,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,562,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 62,294,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          17,578,000
<BONDS>                                        17,410,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       70,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     26,693,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   62,294,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,944,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  23,858,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,863,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             771,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,580,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   351,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,229,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,229,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.16
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis 

EDYN OSLEY GUERRA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0497-07-4 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 24, 2007 

HAWK, INC. AND 

 WCAMC CONTRACTORS GROUP 

 SELF INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Arturo H. Hernandez, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Michael P. Del Bueno; Brandon R. Jordan; Whitt & Del Bueno, PC, 

on brief), for appellees. 

 Edyn Osley Guerra (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission denying his claim for permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits.1

 Claimant 

argues the commission abused its discretion in disregarding the treating physician’s opinion. We 

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See

Guerra v. Hawk, Inc., VWC File No. 220-50-50 (Feb. 21, 2007). We dispense with oral 

argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 The commission noted in its opinion that claimant’s Written Statement on review 

addressed only the issue of PPD benefits and, therefore, limited its review to that issue. While 

claimant raises the question on appeal of whether the commission abused its discretion in 

allowing employer to conduct and file an Independent Medical Examination, he did not obtain 

any ruling on that question from the full commission on review. Accordingly, there is nothing 

for us to review, and we will not consider that question for the first time on appeal. See Green v. 

Warwick Plumbing & Heating Corp., 5 Va. App. 409, 413, 364 S.E.2d 4, 6 (1988); Rule 5A:18. 
- 2 -

in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          43,578
<SECURITIES>                                    18,530
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                       272
<INVENTORY>                                      1,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,231
<PP&E>                                          11,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,818
<BONDS>                                            130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,318
<SALES>                                         35,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,433
<CGS>                                           10,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,525
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,380
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Gene S. Godick, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Verticalnet, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify to my
knowledge that:



| | (1) | The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ GENE S. GODICKGene S. GodickExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 14, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Verticalnet,
Inc. and will be retained by Verticalnet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6400 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6400

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 111 North 6th Street in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Earl Wilson, Jr. 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EARL WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 111 North 6th Street in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office''.
    (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 ``Earl 
Wilson, Jr. Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Covad Communications Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Mark A. Richman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18. U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

|                   |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  | 
|------------------ |  |  | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                   |  |  | COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
|                  
|                   |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  | 
|                   |  |  | By:                              | /s/ MARK A. RICHMAN                                                 |  | 
|                   |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  | 
|                   |  |  |                                  | Mark A. RichmanExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2003 |  |  |                                  |                                                                     |  |