alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Burvon KING, also known as Chocolate, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-11178

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 31, 2013.

Burvon King, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Burvon King, federal prisoner # 21029-077, appeals the district court’s denying *351his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion. (He has filed several such motions previously.) King’s brief is virtually identical to the motion filed in district court. The brief fails to identify any error in the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Although a *pro se*brief is afforded liberal construction, *e.g., Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993), when appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if appellant has not appealed that issue, *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). King has abandoned the only issue on appeal by failing to brief it adequately. *E.g., Yohey,*985 F.2d at 224-25.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *351published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case 1:07-cv-05346-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                  [LETTERHEAD]



                        CONSENT OF INDEPEND ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
L. Luria & Son, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No.
33-2070) on Form S-8 of L. Luria & Son, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 1995,
relating to the statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
of L. Luria & Son, Inc. for the year ended January 28, 1995, which report
appears in or is incorporated by reference in the annual report on Form 10-K of
L. Luria & Son, Inc.

KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

April 25, 1997
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dwayne EARLY, a/k/a Dollar Rob, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6046.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 8, 2013.

Decided: May 22, 2013.

Robert Dwayne Early, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United *183States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Dwayne Early seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Early that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Early has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

| Date:      | September 21, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|       |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |   |   |   |
| Signature: | /s/ Harris A. Lichtenstein, Ph.D.                                                           |   |   |   |
|       | Name: Harris A. Lichtenstein, Ph.D.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|       | Title:  President, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorOmnimmune Holdings, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |   |   |   |
#### WAGER, Respondent, v. LINK et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

July 14, 1894.)

Action by M. Francis Wager against Thomas B. Link and others. Warren. Patterson *&*Faulkner (Chas. E. Patterson, of counsel, for appellants. G. R. Donnan and E. R. Harder, for respondent.

HERRICK, J.

The decision of the court of appeals (134 N. Y. 126, 31 N. E. 213) upon the former appeal in this action, it seems to me, disposes of all there is in this case. The case is the same in all essential particulars now as it was when it was before the court before. The judgment should be affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0262 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0262

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol amending the Agreement on Maritime Transport between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People's Republic of China, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (COM(2004)0864 - C6-0180/2005 - 2004/0290(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 157 E , 06/07/2006 P. 0053 - 0054 *

P6_TA(2005)0262

Protocol to Agreement on Maritime Transport with China *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol amending the Agreement on Maritime Transport between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the People's Republic of China, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (COM(2004)0864 — C6-0180/2005 — 2004/0290(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2004)0864) [1],

- having regard to Articles 71(1), 80 and 300(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0180/2005),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0205/2005),

1. Approves the conclusion of the Protocol;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the People's Republic of China.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Theundersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of BuildingMaterials Holding Corporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

 

•        the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•        the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.

 

Dated:  November 14, 2003

 

 
| /s/ Robert E. Mellor                                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                          |
| Chairman of the Board, President and  Chief Executive Officer |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                                 |

 

1

----
143 So. 807

#### In re OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES.

No. 17.

Supreme Court of -Alabama.

Sept. 16, 1932.

*361Response of the Justices.

To the Senate of Alabama:

Replying to Resolution 45, asking if Senate Bill 159 violates either section 72 or 213 of the Constitution of 1901, will say:

As we view the bill it merely authorizes the consolidation of a debt already existing and does not create a new debt as forbidden by section 213 of the Constitution of 1901. Whether or not the debt or warrants for which the bill authorizes a new consolidated warrant violates section 213, we are not asked and do not express an opinion. It is sufficient to say that if the old or original warrants are valid charges, the consolidated or substituted warrant would be.

Nor do we think that the bill violates section 72 of the Constitution. If the first warrants are valid charges, the giving or issuing of a new consolidated warrant would not violate section 72 of the Constitution.

Respectfully,

JNO. C. ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

WM. H. THOMAS,

VIRGIL BOULDIN,

A. B. FOSTER, Associate Justices.
142 So. 918

#### Henderson TERRY v. STATE.

8 Div. 409.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 19, 1932.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Paul Gonzalez, Jr.

, * From the 118 th District Court

o f Martin County,

Trial Court No

. 1763

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 117

- CR * June 13, 2024

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          36,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,697
<PP&E>                                       6,436,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                 726,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,862,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,314,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          291,637
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,266,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,547,846
<SALES>                                        555,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               841,702
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  991,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (149,538)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (149,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (149,538)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of National Amusements, Inc., et al., Appellants, v County of Nassau et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel correction of the 1985/1986 assessment roll and payment of refunds of excess taxes paid as a result of the improper revocation of the tax exemption provided by RPTL 485-b, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered June 10, 1987, as dismissed that branch of the petition which was to compel correction of the 1985/1986 assessment roll and payment of a tax refund for that tax year.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The antecedent factual and procedural history of this case is described in *Corporate Prop. Investors v Board of Assessors*(153 AD2d 656 [decided herewith]) and *Matter of Coliseum Towers Assocs. v Livingston*(153 AD2d 683 [decided herewith]).

The Supreme Court properly dismissed that branch of the petition which was to compel correction of the 1985/1986 assessment roll and payment of a tax refund. Since the record indicates that the appellants never filed applications for the correction of the 1985/1986 assessment roll with the Nassau County Department of Assessment *(see,*RPTL 554 [2], [3]), a special proceeding to compel the county respondents to carry out the statutory procedures for correction of the assessment roll does not lie *(cf., Matter of Coliseum Towers Assocs. v Livingston, supra).*

*696We have considered the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Amendment No. 1 to Sheltered Savings Plan



 Exhibit 10.3.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE 
 UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC. 
 SHELTERED SAVINGS PLAN 
  
 Effective as of August 31, 1997, the definition of “Employee” in Section 1.2 of the Unified Western Grocers, Inc. Sheltered Savings Plan (the “Plan”) is amended and restated to read as follows: 
  
 “‘Employee’ shall mean every person classified by the Company
as a common law employee of the Company and any Affiliated Company that has adopted the Plan with the permission of the Board of Directors. ‘Employee’ shall not include any person who is (i) employed by or through a leasing, temporary, or similar agency or company, or (ii) classified by the Company as a leased employee (‘Leased
Employee’) of the Company or any such Affiliated Company. For this purpose, a Leased Employee is a person whose services are performed under primary direction or control by the Company or any Affiliated Company on a substantially full time
basis for a period of at least one year in accordance with Code Section 414(n)(2). If any person described in the preceding sentence is determined to be a common law employee of the Company by court decision or otherwise, such person shall
nonetheless continue to be treated as not being an Employee.” 
  
 * * * 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Unified Western Grocers,
Inc. has executed this Amendment this 11 day of June, 2002. 
  

			
	 UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC.

		
	By:	 	/s/    DON GILPIN        
	 	 	Don Gilpin
	 Its:
	 	Vice President, Human Resources
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-118158,333-118156, 033-79996, 333-39574, 333-43389, 33-9559)pertaining to the Axsys Technologies, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan andTrust of our reports dated February 17, 2006, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Axsys Technologies, Inc.,Axsys Technologies, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Axsys Technologies, Inc., included inthis Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2005.

/s/ Ernst &Young, LLP

Hartford, ConnecticutFebruary 24, 2006

----
Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05307-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Brenda Granger and Tyrone McGhee v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 01158

- CV

Trial court case number: 1011275

Tria l court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2 of Harris County

On January 11, 2013, appellants Brenda Granger and Tyrone McGhee filed an affidavit of indigence in the trial court in the above

- referenced appeal , and the county clerk timely filed a

contest to th e affidavit the same day. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(e). On January 15, 2013, the trial court timely signed an order sustaining the contest to the affidavit. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(i)(4). If appellants wished to challenge the order sustaining the conte st, appellants were required to file a motion challenging the order no later than January 25, 2013. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(j)(2). No timely motion challenging the order sustaining the contest was filed. Accordingly, appellant s are not entitled to proc eed on appeal without payment of costs.

Appellant s are ORDERED to pay the filing fee of $175.00 to this Court no later than 10 days from the date of this order, or the appeal will be dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil ca ses unless indigent), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence)

, 42.3 (allowing involuntary dismissal); see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § § 51.207

, 51.941(a)

, 101.041 ( West 2013 ) (listing fees in court of appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged

in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals).

Appellan t s are further ORDERED to file within 30 days of the date of this order proof that appellant s have paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record or this Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b).

It is so ORDERED.Judge’s signature: Laura Carter Higley

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 17, 2013
June 14, 2006

Ms. Eileen A. Donovan

Acting Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Reference File # 2691.01
Rule Certification

Dear Ms. Donovan:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®)
hereby submits the following changes in holiday-related trading schedules. (All times
shown are Central Time.)

- On Monday, July 3 and Friday, November 24, 2006, CBOT Stock Index
contracts will close early at 12:15 p.m. for open auction trading and at 12:30
p.m. for e-cbot® (electronic) trading.

- For the overnight period on Monday night, December 25, 2006, e-cbot will
remain closed. For trade date Tuesday December 26, 2006, e-cbot trading
will begin at 6:00 a.m. for Financial contracts, 6:15 a.m. for Stock Index and
Metals contracts, and concurrently with open auction opening times for
Agricultural contracts.

There were no opposing views concerning these revisions.

The CBOT certifies that these revisions comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and
the rules thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary
O77 one

26 bb os 50
UFC. GF ifi

© SECRETA
ce) RIA]

July 25, 2006

Ms. Eileen A. Donovan

Acting Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Center

1155 21" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581
Reference File #2707.01
Rule Certification

Dear Ms. Donovan:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®) hereby
submits the following:

- Amendments to Regulation 2006.01 per the attached text (additions underlined;
deletions struck through).

The referenced amendments will establish a cabinet trade provision for CBOT Binary Options on
the Target Fed Funds Rate. This provision will enable market participants to exit positions at
cabinet prices consistent with an option’s value. As such, it is comparable to provisions that are
in effect for the other CBOT financial option contracts.

The CBOT intends to implement these amendments one day after the Commission’s receipt of
this submission.

There were no opposing views concerning these amendments.

The CBOT certifies that these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and the
rules thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary

b071806


Additions underlined; deletions struck through

2006.01 Price Basis of Option Premium — The option premium of a Binary Option shall
be quoted in points, shall never be less than zero (0) points, and shall never exceed one hundred
(100) points. One point shall equal ten dollars ($10.00). The minimum price fluctuation shall be

one (1) point, or ten dollars ($10.00) per contract. Contracts shall net be made-on-any other price

basis: However, when both sides of the trade are closing transactions, the option premium may
range from $1.00 to $9.00 in $1.00 increments per option contract.