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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL DELANEY ROBERTS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CR-96-291-WMN, CA-99-511-WMN)

Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. John

Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael D. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Roberts, Nos. CR-96-291-

WMN, CA-99-511-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 8, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
Bryant LYLES, petitioner, v. MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, USA, INC.

No. 17-1020.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00595

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Barry Schwartz <barryschwartz 1 @mac.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:47 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Barry Schwartz

5510 W. 78th Street

Los Angeles, CA 90045
---

Exhibit 10.4

SECOND AMENDMENT to the 
Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999 between Roger Robb and Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc.

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of August 20, 2001, by and between Roger Robb (the Employee) and PW Eagle,
Inc., f/k/a Eagle Pacific Industries, Inc. (Eagle).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Employee and Eagle are parties to that certain Employment Agreement executed September 16, 1999, as amended December 15, 1999 (the
Agreement).

WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement effective August 20,
2001 to take into account the resolutions adopted by Eagles Board of Directors at its meeting on such date.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree as follows:

| | 1. | The term of the Agreement as referenced in Section 1 shall be through December 31, 2004.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                         
| | 2. | Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.          

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement effective as of the date first written above.

|PW EAGLE, INC.         |                 
|---------------------- | ----------------
|(the Company)        |                 
|                       |                 
|                       |                 
|By:  /s/ Larry Fleming | /s/Roger R. Robb
|Its:  President        | (the Employee)

|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|[RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]
|
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 Annual Report of Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas P.
Hess, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/ THOMAS P. HESS     
|Thomas P. Hess         
|Chief Financial Officer

March 3, 2006
# C_2011238EN.01001603.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/16

---

Order of the General Court of 22 June 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-409/09) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Annulment of the decision by a judgment of the General Court - Limitation period - Time-limits on account of distance - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

2011/C 238/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Commission of 15 September 2004 rejecting its bid and awarding the contract to another tenderer in the course of the tendering procedure for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Fisheries.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---
# C_2009256EN.01001202.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/12

---

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-313/09)

2009/C 256/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1) (as amended by Commission Directive 2008/53/EC of 30 April 2008 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards Spring viraemia of carp (SVC) (2)) or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1) (as amended by Commission Directive 2008/53/EC of 30 April 2008 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards Spring viraemia of carp (SVC) (2)) or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

2

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 1 May 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 328, p. 14.

1

(2)  OJ 2008 L 117, p. 27.

2

---
In re Kenneth E. ROBINSON, petitioner.

No. 16-6572.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ERMINIO HERNANDEZ

- RAUDA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 50406 D.C. No. 3:15

- cr - 01336

- BEN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016 ** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Erminio Hernandez

- Rauda appeals from the district court’ s judgment and challenges the 18

- month s entence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a)

. We have jurisdi ction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 50406

Hernandez

- Rauda contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his mitigating arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir . 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Hernandez

- Rauda ’s arguments and the applicable section 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained th e sentence
. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 991

- 92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc ). Hernandez

- Rauda next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Hernandez

- Rauda’s sentence

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and th e totality of the circumstances, including Hernandez

- Rauda ’s immigration history and the need for deterrence. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ; see also United States v. Burgos

- Ortega , 777 F.3d 1047, 1056

- 57 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 2848 (2015) (district court “reasonably concluded” that the need for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors a nd “required a sentence at least equal to [the defendant’s] last illegal re

- entry sentenc e”).
AFFIRMED.
II-00187

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

CAROL CREAMER <CAROLGEE 181 @MSN.COM>

Friday, December 3, 2010 10:46 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

CAROL CREAMER

110 33 72ND AVE

Forest Hills, NY 11375
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,292,059
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,168
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          97,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,603,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        116
<COMMON>                                        12,158
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,658,972)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,603,225
<SALES>                                      1,083,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,083,149
<CGS>                                          692,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,732,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               320,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (306,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             546,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (435,855)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (435,855)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
Monte Cato LITTLE COYOTE, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6155.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15889]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-34226B; FRL-6788-1]


Availability of Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for 
Comment; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  In the Federal Register of May 23, 2001 (66 FR 28469) (FRL-
6775-9), EPA announced the availability and start of a 60-day public 
comment period on the Reregistration Eligibility Decision document for 
the pesticide active ingredient triallate. On page 28469, second 
column, under the DATES caption, the date provided for the receipt of 
comments was inadvertently listed as May 20, 2001. The correct date is 
July 23, 2001. This notice announces the correct comment period.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-34226A, must 
be received on or before July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: For detailed instructions concerning the submission of 
comments, refer to Unit I.C. of the Federal Register of May 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Carol Stangel, Special Review 
and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8007; and e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9be8effaf5fcfef7b5f8fae9f4f7dbfeebfab5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="215255404f46444d0f4240534e4d614451400f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For technical questions on the RED, contact: Michael Goodis, 
Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8157; and e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4c3cbcbc0cdd78ac9cdc7ccc5c1c8e4c1d4c58ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="42252d2d262b316c2f2b212a23272e022732236c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides.


    Dated: June 7, 2001.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of 
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 01-15889 Filed 6-22-01 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1039, 1040, 1041.

#### Swindell & Company *v.*Bainbridge State Bank.

Hill, C. J.

1. The Bainbridge State Bank brought three suits in the city-court of Bainbridge, against E. Swindell & Company, on notes. Demurrers to the pleas were sustained, and judgments were thereupon rendered in favor of the bank. Swindell & Company sued out writs of error to this court, and this court, without condition or direction, affirmed the judgments of the lower court (3 *Ga. App.*364 (60 S. E. 13)). When a motion was made in the Ibwer court to make the remittiturs from this court t’he judgments of that court, Swindell & Company offered to amend the pleas which had been stricken on demurrer, and asked that the judgments of the city court be opened for the purpose of allowing the amendment to be filed. The court below refused to open the judgments and allow the amendment, and the writs of error in the present cases challenge the correctness of this ruling. *Held,*no error. The decision of this court, affirming the judgments of the court below, ended the cases. *Augusta Ry. Co.*v. *Andrews,*92 *Ga.*706 (19 S. E. 713); *Cen**415*tral R. Co.*v. *Patterson,*87 *Ga.*646 (13 S. E. 525) ; *Savannah Ry. Co.*v. *Cheney,*102 *Ga.*814 (30 S. E. 437) *; Cooper*v. *Portner Brewing Co.,*113 *Ga.*3 (38 S. E. 347).

Motion to amend, etc., from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Harrell. January 29, 1908.

Submitted April 22,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*Bower & Bower, R. G. Hartsfield,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Russell & Hawes,*contra.

2. The decisions relied upon by the plaintiffs in error, as giving the right of amendment when the remittitur reaches the court below and before it has been made the judgment of that court, relate to eases where the effect of the judgment under review is not a final disposition of the ease, and that result will not be reached until the remittitur has been made the judgment of the court below. *Cooper*v. *Portner Brewing Co.,*supra; *Augusta Ry. Co.*v. *Andrews,*supra; *Tift*v. *Goode,*47 *Ga.*507; *Pritchett*v. *Commissioners of Bartow County,*93 *Ga.*736 (19 S. E. 896).

3. It manifestly appearing from the Tecord that the writs of error in these cases were sued out for delay only, the judgments are affirmed, with ten per cent, damages against the plaintiffs in error on the judgments rendered in the court below. *Judgment affvrmed, with damages.*
Michael DUHS, petitioner, v. Michael CAPRA, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

No. 15-9557.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
II-O0211

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

William Gop <loveyourwheel@hotmail. com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 5:09 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

William Gop

p.o. box 77

Lenox Dale, MA 1242
Raghvendra SINGH, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER of INTERNAL REVENUE, et al.

No. 15-9437.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.