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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 August 15, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 04-13707

___________________

D.C. Docket No. 04-80042-CR-DTKH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN KITZELMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________

(August 15, 2005)

Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

____________________

*Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama,

sitting by designation.
 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years.

1

 United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 2

2

John Kitzelman appeals his 188 month sentence imposed after he pled

guilty to one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 924(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Kitzelman originally contended that the district

court’s finding that he was subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”),

18 U.S.C. § 924(e) violated the Sixth Amendment. At sentencing, Kitzelman 1

objected based on both Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Kitzelman’s ACCA enhancement argument

is without merit; however, we conclude that Kitzelman’s objections were

sufficient to preserve Booker error. See United States v. Dowling, 403 F.3d 1242 2

(11th Cir. 2005). 

The district court determined that Kitzelman’s guideline range was 188 -

235, months and then applying the guidelines as mandatory, sentenced him to 188

months. While the district court followed the correct procedure as it then existed,

the district court’s mandatory application of the guideline range constituted what

this Court has referred to as a statutory Booker error. See United States v.

Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005). 
3

We will only reverse Kitzelman’s sentence if we determine that the error

was harmful. See United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). A

“[statutory] error is harmless if, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, a court

determines that the error did not affect the verdict, ‘or had but very slight effect.’ 

If one can say ‘with fair assurance . . . that the judgment was not substantially

swayed by the error,’ the judgment is due to be affirmed even though there was

error.” United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 2004)

(internal citations omitted) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750,

762-63 (1946)).

After reviewing the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we cannot say that

the Booker statutory error was harmless. Even though the defendant cannot be

sentenced to less than 180 months, the district court must resentence him, treating

the sentencing guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
#### Edward D. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BASTROP MEDICAL CLINIC, P.A., Incorporated; Augustin Batlle, Medical Director; Sarah Chavez, Masters of Science in Nursing, Certified Family Nurse Practitioner, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-50981

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 2, 2012.

Edward D. Smith, Dime Box, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edward Smith claims the defendants denied him pain medication. He sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the defendants are private persons and not state actors. Even assuming that Smith has adequately briefed an issue in his *pro se*brief, he has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The district court properly dismissed, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2010091EN.01001501.xml

| 9.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/15

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 91/07

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Le-Puy-en-Velay (Loudes)–Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | 14 January 2011-13 January 2015 |
| Deadline for submission of applications and tenders | for applications (first step): | 8 June 2010 (12:00, local time) |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Le-Puy-en-Velay (Loudes)–Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

14 January 2011-13 January 2015

Deadline for submission of applications and tenders

for applications (first step):

8 June 2010 (12:00, local time)

| | for tenders (second step) |
| --- | --- |

for tenders (second step)

| | 16 July 2010 (12:00, local time) |
| --- | --- |

16 July 2010 (12:00, local time)

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

| Syndicat mixte de gestion de l’aérodrome départemental Le-Puy-en-Velay/Loudes |
| --- |
| Aéroport Le Puy-en-Velay/Loudes |
| 43320 Loudes |
| FRANCE |
| MM. Alain EYRAUD et Pascal REY |
| Tel. +33 471086187 |
| Fax +33 471086640 |
| E-mail: aeroport.le-puy-en-velay@orange.fr |

Syndicat mixte de gestion de l’aérodrome départemental Le-Puy-en-Velay/Loudes

Aéroport Le Puy-en-Velay/Loudes

43320 Loudes

FRANCE

MM. Alain EYRAUD et Pascal REY

Tel. +33 471086187

Fax +33 471086640

E-mail: aeroport.le-puy-en-velay@orange.fr

---
```

[Federal Register: September 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 50556]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22se98-44]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 30, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-25425 Filed 9-18-98; 1:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
<PAGE>
Exhibit 11.1

                                 Voxware, Inc.
                 Statements re: Computation of Loss Per Share
                           Year Ended June 30, 1997
                     (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                            Year Ended
                                                           June 30, 1997
                                                         ------------------

Net Loss                                                     $ (7,044)
                                                             =========


Primary and fully diluted weighted average common
  and common equivalent shares oustanding:
          Common stock                                         11,254
          Common stock options and warrants (1)                    47

  Total primary and fully diluted weighted average
          common and common equivalent shares
                                                             =========
          outstanding                                          11,301
                                                             =========


                                                             =========
Loss per share                                                $ (0.62)
                                                             =========


(1)  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
     stock, stock options and warrants issued by the Company during the twelve
     months immediately preceding the initial public offering have been included
     in computing loss per share as if they were outstanding for all prior
     periods prior to the initial public offering using the treasury stock
     method, even though their effect is anti-dilutive.
```

[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 76279]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de06-54]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, January 19, 2007.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Catherine D. Daniels,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-9799 Filed 12-18-06; 11:32 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

---

FORM 8-K

---

CURRENT REPORT



PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Date of Report (date of earliest event reported):February 28, 2007

---

Rimage Corporation

(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)



Minnesota

(State Or Other Jurisdiction Of Incorporation)



000-00619
        41-1577970(Commission File Number)
        (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)




7725 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN
        55439(Address Of Principal Executive Offices)
        (Zip Code)




(952) 944-8144

Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code

---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing
is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions
(seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---

Items under Sections 1 through 4 and 6 though 9 are
not applicable and therefore omitted.



ITEM 5.02
DEPARTURE OF DIRECTORS OR CERTAIN OFFICERS; ELECTION OF DIRECTORS; APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS; COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS.

On February 28, 2007, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Rimage Corporation (the Company) approved, and the Board of
Directors ratified, cash bonuses under the Companys 2006 cash incentive compensation program for executive officers (the
2006 Incentive Plan). The following table summarizes the payouts under the 2006 Incentive Plan for the Companys
Chief Executive Officer, Bernard P. Aldrich, the Companys Chief Financial Officer, Robert M. Wolf, and each of the other
three most highly compensated executive officers of the Company for fiscal year 2006:

Executive Officer and Title
        2006 Incentive Plan Award AmountBernard P. Aldrich,
Chief Executive Officer
        $138,450Manuel M. Almeida
Chief Operating Officer
        $ 88,750David J. Suden
Chief Technical Officer
        $ 79,875Robert M. Wolf
Chief Financial Officer
        $ 60,350Pamela Lampert
Vice President Human Resources
        $ 31,950




SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.



RIMAGE CORPORATIONBy:
        /s/   Robert M. WolfRobert M. Wolf
Chief Financial Officer




Date:   March 2, 2007





---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         110
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              104,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,377)
<INVENTORY>                                 35,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           159,330
<PP&E>                                      25,513
<DEPRECIATION>                             (12,319)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             173,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      116,948
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        49
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               173,363
<SALES>                                    129,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           129,262
<CGS>                                      119,482
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,970
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (739)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,574)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.17)



</TABLE>
#### CONTROLOTRON CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-0310-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 9, 2012.

Jeffrey G. Stark, Meyer, Suozzi, English *&*Klein, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for Appellant.

Bryon L. Friedman, Littleton, Joyce, Ughetta, Park & Kelly, LLP, Purchase, N.Y., for Appellee.

Present: WALKER, PIERRE N. LEVAL and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

*9SUMMARY ORDER

Controlotron Corp. appeals from an order of the district court denying Controlo-tron’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting a cross-motion by Siemens Industry, Inc., to confirm that award. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case, the procedural posture, and the issues on appeal.

“As a general matter, [w]e review a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award *de novo*to the extent it turns on legal questions, and we review any findings of fact for clear error.” *Telenor Mobile Commc’ns AS v. Storm LLC,*584 F.3d 396, 408 (2d Cir.2009) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). An arbitrator’s award will be upheld “if an arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority.” *Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey,*532 U.S. 504, 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Controlotron’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by allowing Siemens to add a new claim is without merit. The Scheduling Order at issue in this case contains a provision that explicitly empowered the arbitrator to modify the terms of the Order at any time. *See*J.A. 110 (making clear that the “order shall continue in effect *unless and until amended by subsequent order of the Arbitrator*” (emphasis added)). Therefore, even if the parties had agreed not to bring new claims or amend existing ones, *see*J.A. 109, the plain language of the Scheduling Order makes clear that they also agreed that the arbitrator would retain authority to grant exceptions to that general prohibition. And the arbitrator’s decision to permit Siemens to add a new claim was itself an exercise of her authority to amend the Scheduling Order.

Controlotron also argues that the arbitrator’s written decision was insufficient under the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. We disagree. The parties’ agreement merely specified that the arbitrator’s “decision shall be written and shall be supported by written findings of fact and conclusions [of law] which shall set forth the award, judgment, decree or order.” J.A. 69. The arbitrator’s decision complied with that specification.

We have considered Controlotron’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - [I.D. 051501B]

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Request for nominations.

# SUMMARY:

This notice is a call for nominees for the U.S.  Delegation to the July 2001 International Whaling Commission (IWC) annual meeting.

# DATES:

All nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting must be received by June 22, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

All nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting should be addressed to the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, and sent, via post or fax, to Cathy Campbell at Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (fax) 301-713-0376.  Prospective Congressional advisors to the delegation should contact the Department of State directly.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Campbell, 301-713-2322, Extension 141.  Fax 301-713-0376.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Secretary of Commerce is charged with the responsibility of discharging the obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946.  The U.S. commissioner has primary responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC.  He is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, Marine Mammal Commission, and by other agencies.  The non-federal representative selected as a result of this nomination process is responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations. 

The IWC is hosting its 53rd annual meeting from July 23-27, 2001 in London.

Dated: June 6, 2001.

Wanda L. Cain,

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resouces, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01-14773 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE  3510-22-S
No. 169.

#### United States Trust Company of New York, Trustee, *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Clay Judson*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *John MacC. Hudson*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1260 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1260

 Expressing support for designation of April 2010 as Student Financial 
    Aid Awareness Month to raise awareness of student financial aid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2010

 Mr. Bishop of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of April 2010 as Student Financial 
    Aid Awareness Month to raise awareness of student financial aid.

Whereas education is the key to a successful future for many people in the 
        United States;
Whereas the ability of some students to attend an institution of higher 
        education is conditional on the availability of student financial 
        assistance;
Whereas the cost of higher education continues to rise for 4-year private 
        colleges and universities, 4-year public colleges and universities, 2-
        year community colleges, and for profit institutions;
Whereas students and families across the United States are making important 
        decisions about financing their education at an institute of higher 
        education;
Whereas efforts to increase awareness about student financial aid options are 
        necessary for students across the United States to receive all of the 
        financial aid available to them;
Whereas increasing awareness about the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 
        (FAFSA) ensures that more eligible students may benefit from Federal 
        financial assistance;
Whereas students must complete and submit a new FAFSA each school year to be 
        considered for all forms of Federal financial aid;
Whereas each year, about 14,000,000 students apply for financial aid by filling 
        out the FAFSA;
Whereas increasing access to Federal financial aid helps reduce students' 
        reliance on costly private loans; and
Whereas the designation of April 2010 as Student Financial Aid Awareness Month 
        will help call attention to the critical role financial assistance plays 
        in helping students attending an institution of higher education: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of Student Financial Aid 
        Awareness Month; and
            (2) encourages students and families across the United 
        States to participate in Student Financial Aid Awareness Month.
                                 <all>
```