alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes, United States Magistrate J udge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2829

___________ Todd Curtis Myers, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Anoka County Sheriff, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 29, 2010 Filed: February 17, 2011

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Minnesota inmate Todd Myers appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 clai ms against the Anoka County Sheriff, Detention Deputy Andrew Sc hroeder, and unnamed Nursi ng Staff and “Dr. on Call” defendants for causing the dela yed medical treatment of a broken jaw Myers suffered during an assault by another inmate at the Anoka County Jail.-2- After careful de novo review of the record, we conc lude that the district court (i) did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Myers’s claims against the unnamed medical staff defendants because he failed to identify and serve those defendants for more than a year after filing this action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); (ii) properly granted summary judgment in favor of Deputy Schroeder because, even crediting Myers’s disputed testimony that he told Schroeder i mmediately after the assault that he needed to see a doctor or nurse because his jaw and face hurt, Myers admitted that he complained of pain in his jaw to a nur se “at the next Med line” and received some medical attention, so any failure by Schroeder to seek me dical attention for Myers was not the cause of any delay in providing th e necessary treatment; and (iii) properly dismissed the official capacity claims because Myers failed to identify any Anoka County policy that violated his constitutional rights. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Myers’s request for the appointment of counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail , 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LONNIE BILL BURCHAM

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00196

- C R

Appeal from the

385th Judicial District Court

of Midland County, Texas

(TC# CR55841 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023.

LISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Soto, J ., Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J. (Ret.) (sitting by assignment)
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard Willett, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the
Company for the periods presented.



Dated: June 14, 2004



/s/    RICHARD
WILLETTRichard WillettChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Operations of Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd




This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Pierre Duhamel, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



Dated: November 9, 2005



/s/    PIERRE DUHAMELPierre Duhamel Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd




This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION FOUND ON 
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997 
<CASH>                                            251 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,609 
<ALLOWANCES>                                      246 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  497 
<PP&E>                                          7,831 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,315 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,121 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,000 
<BONDS>                                         7,500 
<COMMON>                                        2,518 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,386 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,904 
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,395 
<CGS>                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,102 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                119 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,352 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,836 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,516 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,516 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .44 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .44 
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

                                Service Agreement

This Service Agreement is made and entered in to on this the 1st day of May,
2001 by and between Construction and Marine Equipment, hereafter referred to as
CME, and New York Cross Harbor Railroad, hereafter referred to as NYCH.

In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and representations,
warranties and guarantees set forth in this agreement, and other good and
valuable consideration, the Parties, NYCH and CME, intending to be legally
bound, hereto agree as follows:

  1.  CME will provide the loading and unloading of intermodal containers on and
      off of railcars at the Greenville Yard In Jersey City, NJ. CME will
      provide all of the necessary equipment, materials, and labor to perform
      the above services CME will provide all of the maintenance and insurance
      covering the equipment.

  2.  Service Charges. The following is a schedule of charges for the loading
      and unloading of containers on and off of railcars:

             - $375 per car far cars l through 45, monthly
             - $325 per car for cars 46 and above, monthly
             - CME will invoice NYCH every 15 days with payment due in 14 days -
             CME will be reimbursed up to $5000 for the initial mobilization
               of equipment into Greenville Yard with first invoice, but not
               more than actual cost.
             - CME will bill NYCH up to $5000 for the demobilization and
               movement of equipment upon cancellation or termination of this
               agreement, but not more than actual cost.
             - NYCH will guarantee a minimum of 45 cars per month, or 540 cars
               annually

  3.  Term - This service agreement shall commence on the 1st day of May 2001
      and terminate on April 30, 2006. By agreement, the term of this lease may
      be extended upon terms and conditions mutually acceptable to both Parties.

  4.  Indemnity - CME agrees as its sole cost to hold NYCH harmless from and
      against any liability claim, demand, lien, suit, action or proceeding,
      judgment, award, decree, and all costs and expenses incurred therewith,
      including attorney's fees for (a) any failure of CME to comply with its
      obligation under this agreement and (b) death, injury, or damage to
      property or person or any other disability whatsoever arising out of this
      agreement.

  5.  Insurance - CME shall at its sole expense obtain and maintain
      Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability insurance. Said policy of
      insurance shall be for a minimum amount of three million dollars
      ($3,000,000) combined single limit for both bodily injury and property
      damage. CME shall furnish NYCH with a




        Construction and Marine Equipment

        Date: May 1, 2001

        by John Dengel
           ------------------------------
           John Dengel, President

        New York Cross Harbor Railroad

        Date: May 1, 2001

        by Ronald W. Bridges
           ------------------------------
           Ronald W. Bridges, President
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2021 ND 180

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Barry Ryder Reddog, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20210055

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND , for plainitff and appellee ; submitted on brief

. Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND , for defendant and appellant

.1 State v. Reddog No. 20210055

Per Curiam

. [¶1] Barry Reddog appealed from a criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of robbery with a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit felonious restraint. He argues th e evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. After reviewing the record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the verdict. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P

. 35.1(a)(3).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
STATE v. DUARTE

No. COA04-1455.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Henderson (03CRS52615).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing.
STATE v. SHUFORD.

No. COA05-1381.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Iredell (04CRS54434).

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Willie FORREST, III.

No. 270A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 5, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 164 N.C.App. 272, 596 S.E.2d 22 (2004), finding no error in judgments entered 7 March 2003 by Judge W. Osmond Smith in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 April 2004.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kevin Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Irving Joyner, Cary, NC, for defendant-appellant.

Robert P. Mosteller, Cooperating Attorney, Durham, NC, for amici curiae the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina and the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17501 and #17502; Illinois Disaster Number IL-00069]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Illinois dated 07/05/2022. *Incident:*
                         Condominium Complex Fire. *Incident Period:*
                         05/30/2022.
 DATES: Issued on 07/05/2022. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         09/06/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/05/2023.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Cook. *Contiguous Counties:* Illinois: Dupage, Kane, Lake, Mchenry, Will. Indiana: Lake. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.375Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.688Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.870Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.935Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.935Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17501 5 and for economic injury is 17502 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # is Illinois, Indiana. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-14657 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
48 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

IOWA 

#38 #35 0.5% $913 #33 #41 #46 

$2.9 B SPENT IN 1.4% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $2.5 B CONTRACT 12,995 NUMBER OF $0.4 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and onstruction: 3% 

Development: 4%

Service: 17%

d

: 76% 

C

Supplies an

Equipment

By Service 

Army

30%

Navy/Marines

44%

Air Force

22%

Other Defense

4%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions)

Raytheon $909.0 M

BAE Systems/Raytheon $370.8 M

United Technologies $366.0 M

American Ordnance $257.7 M

Lockheed Martin $180.0 M

Cobham $79.0 M

Hendrickson Transportation $43.7 M

Klutina River Contractors $40.8 M

Carver Pump Company $27.6 M

Dexter Apache Holdings Inc. $20.6 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$2.5 $2.2 $2.0

$1.6 $1.3 $1.2 $1.2 $1.0

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Active Duty: 2% Civilian: 14%

Reserve: 17%

National Guard: 67%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

78%

Navy/Marines

3%

Air Force

18%

Other Defense

1%

$392.6 MILLION 12,995

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Reserve Total

Polk 99 768 3,246 763 4,876

Woodbury 0 285 1,109 65 1,459

Scott ND 183 469 230 ND

Linn ND 113 295 392 ND

Black Hawk 27 77 354 88 546

Johnson 46 29 412 ND ND

Boone 0 61 395 0 456

Dallas ND 0 74 282 ND

Dubuque ND 32 157 130 ND

Pottawattamie 0 17 235 63 315
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

IOWA 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Linn

Des Moines

Fremont

Scott

Polk

Pottawattamie

Muscatine

Union

O'Brien

Johnson

(M = millions)

$1.8 B 

$269.1 M 

$100.0 M 

$94.4 M 

$42.8 M 

$39.8 M 

$38.8 M 

$15.1 M 

$12.9 M 

$10.9 M 

Polk

Woodbury

Scott

Linn

Boone

Johnson

Black Hawk

Dubuque

Webster

Dallas

$179.5 M 

$45.0 M 

$25.1 M 

$20.5 M 

$17.4 M 

$16.2 M 

$15.7 M 

$7.5 M 

$7.5 M 

$6.4 M 

O'Brien

Linn

Johnson Scott

Muscatine

Union Des Moines

Pottawattamie

Fremont

Dubuque Webster Black Hawk

Boone

Linn

Johnson Scott

Woodbury

Dallas

Polk

Polk

49
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50649

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES MARTELL-MANZANERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-406-ALL-DB

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Martell-Manzanera appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Martell-Manzanera complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on

his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. 

He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 
No. 02-50649

-2-

Alternatively, Martell-Manzanera contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues

that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Martell-Manzanera acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Michael A. Dwaileebe et al., Plaintiffs, v Six Flags Darien Lake, Also Known as Darien Lake Theme Park and Camping Resort, Inc., et al., Defendants. Gerald W. Schaffer, Jr., Esq., Appellant; Francis M. Letro, Esq., Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 172]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Larry M. Himelein, A.J.), entered January 8, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order, inter alia, imposed sanctions in the amount of $10,000 upon Gerald W Schaffer, Jr., Esq., and directed him to pay that amount to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the first two ordering paragraphs and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Gerald W Schaffer, Jr., Esq., appeals from an order that, inter alia, imposed $10,000 in sanctions upon him for violations of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (2) and (3) and directed him to pay that amount to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection. Although Supreme Court adequately set forth “the conduct on which the . . . imposition is based . . . [and] the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous,” we agree with Schaffer that *the*court failed to set forth “the reasons why the court found the amount. . . imposed to be appropriate” (22 NYCRR 130-1.2; *see Drummond v Drummond,*291 AD2d 368, 370 [2002]; *Day v NYP Holdings,*290 *1283AD2d 342, 343 [2002]; *Chevy Chase, F.S.B. v Sarsfield,*278 AD2d 773, 774 [2000]; *McCue v McCue,*225 AD2d 975, 979 [1996]). We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to comply with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 *(see generally Matter of Wallace B.O. v Christine R.S.O.,*12 AD3d 1057, 1058). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Pine and Hayes, JJ.