alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1801

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

David Carl Sagert, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 23, 2008

 Filed: September 26, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Carl Sagert appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

revoking his supervised release. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we

conclude that Sagert’s sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Tyson, 413

F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review of revocation

sentences), because it is within the statutory limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and it

resulted from the district court’s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), see United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate
-2-

court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation

to, inter alia, certain § 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1114

(Serial No. 77/006,212)

IN RE JAMES T. KIRBY

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

ON MOTION

ORDER

James T. Kirby moves without opposition to voluntarily dismiss his appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

MAY 1 8 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Date	

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	James Scott Gerien, Esq

Raymond T. Chen, Esq.	

MAY 18_2009

s17	 JAN HORIMLY

MAY 18 2009	

CLERK

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: 	

911191taltr"
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
    
    
    To the Board of Directors of
    Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.:
    
    We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
    Management's Report on the Effectiveness of the Internal Control 
    Structure Relative to the Servicing of Consumer Revolving Credit Card
    Receivables, that Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.(the "Bank") maintained an 
    effective internal control structure over financial reporting relative
    to the servicing of consumer revolving credit card receivables owned by 
    Chevy Chase Master Credit Card Trust I Series 1994-1, 1994-2, 1994-3, 
    1994-4. 1994-5, 1994-6, 1994-7, 1995-1, and 1997-1, Chevy Chase Master
    Credit Card Trust II Series 1995-A, 1995-B, 1995-C, 1995-D, 1996-A, 
    1996-B and 1996-C, (collectively referred to as the "Trusts" herein)
    as of September 30, 1997.
          
    Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the 
    American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, 
    included obtaining an understanding of the internal control structure 
    over financial reporting, testing, and evaluating the design and 
    operating effectiveness of the internal control structure, and
    such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
    We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our 
    opinion.   

    Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure,
    errors or irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, 
    projections of any evaluation of the internal control structure over 
    financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the
    internal control structure may become inadequate because of changes in 
    conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or 
    procedures may deteriorate.
       
    In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank maintained an 
    effective internal control structure over financial reporting relative 
    to the servicing of consumer revolving credit card receivables owned
    by the Bank's credit card Trusts as of September 30, 1997,
    is fairly stated, in all material respects, based upon criteria
    established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the 
    Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

    This report is intended solely for the information and use of the
    board of directors and management of the Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank, 
    Bankers Trust Company, Capital Markets Assurance Corporation, Chevy Chase  
    Bank Holding Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, 
    Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Investors Service,
    L.P. and should not be used for any other purpose.
       
       
       
       
       
       Washington, D.C.    
       November 18, 1997
Exhibit 12





PSS WORLD MEDICAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES





FOR THE YEARS ENDED MARCH 29, 2002, MARCH 30, 2001, MARCH 31, 2000,





APRIL 2, 1999 and APRIL 3, 1998


(Dollars in
Thousands)





Fiscal Year Ended2002

2001


2000

1999

1998Fixed charges:Interest expense

$
12,674

$
20,394


$
15,457

$
11,522

$
7,517Capitalized interest


1,801


1,612



1,377





Interest component of rental expense


17,669


17,923



16,375


13,089


10,840Fixed charges

$
32,144

$
39,929


$
33,209

$
24,611

$
18,357Earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change

$
14,007

$
(43,890
)

$
41,527

$
73,681

$
36,349Add: Fixed charges


32,144


39,929



33,209


24,611


18,357Less: Capitalized interest


1,801


1,612



1,377





Total earnings (loss)

$
44,350

$
(5,573
)

$
73,359

$
98,292

$
54,706Ratio of earnings (loss) to fixed charges:Total earnings (loss)

$
44,350

$
(5,573
)

$
73,359

$
98,292

$
54,706Fixed charges

$
32,144

$
39,929


$
33,209

$
24,611

$
18,357Ratio


1.4


N/A



2.2


4.0


3.0(a)


(a)


---

|(a) | The consolidated ratios of earnings to fixed charges shown above is calculated in accordance with Section 229.503 (d) of Regulation S-K and is not calculated in
the same manner as defined under the Notes. (Refer to Note 11, Long-Term Debt). The consolidated ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined in the Notes agreement, includes certain add backs to the numerator and denominator that are not
included in Section 229.503 (d) of Regulation S-K.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ▪   | BroadVision France, S.A., organized under the laws of France |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Germany GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision U.K., Ltd., organized under the laws of the United Kingdom |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Srl, organized under the laws of Italy |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Iberica S.A., organized under the laws of Spain |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | Nihon BroadVision KK, organized under the laws of Japan |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | Interleaf GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision System PVT LTD., organized under the laws of India |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Delaware LLC, organized under the laws of the state of Delaware |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Barbados Ltd., organized under the laws of Barbados |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision OnDemand (Beijing) Ltd., organized under the laws of China |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 32**





**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 RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. 
(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), we, Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      and William C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/
                Louis L. Knickerbocker
            
            
            /s/
                William C. HitchcockLouis
                L. Knickerbocker
            
            William
                C. HitchcockChief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                17, 2006
            
            November
                17, 2006
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4012 

To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, 

or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that 

is not transparent or reproducible. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2014 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. HALL, Mr. BROUN

of Georgia, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. 

ROHRABACHER, Mr. COLLINS of New York, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. OLSON, 

Mr. CRAMER, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. 

PALAZZO, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. SALMON, and Mr. FRANKS of 

Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or 

reproducible. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secret Science Reform 

5 Act of 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4012 IH

1 SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY. 

2 Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Devel3 opment, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 

4 (42 U.S.C. 4363 note) is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, 

6 or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and 

7 technical information relied on to support such covered ac8 tion is— 

9 ‘‘(A) specifically identified; and 

10 ‘‘(B) publicly available in a manner that is suf11 ficient for independent analysis and substantial re12 production of research results. 

13 ‘‘(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as 

14 requiring the public dissemination of information the dis15 closure of which is prohibited by law. 

16 ‘‘(3) In this subsection— 

17 ‘‘(A) the term ‘covered action’ means a risk, ex18 posure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, 

19 standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact 

20 analysis, or guidance; and 

21 ‘‘(B) the term ‘scientific and technical informa22 tion’ includes— 

23 ‘‘(i) materials, data, and associated proto24 cols necessary to understand, assess, and ex25 tend conclusions; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4012 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) computer codes and models involved 

2 in the creation and analysis of such informa3 tion; 

4 ‘‘(iii) recorded factual materials; and 

5 ‘‘(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access 

6 and use such information.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata 

SANDY RIVER MEDICAL CENTER AND 

 COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY 

 INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0999-08-3 PER CURIAM 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 

JOAN B. HOLT 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Lorraine B. D’Angelo; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, 

on brief), for appellants. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Sandy River Medical Center and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal 

a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that (1) employer failed to prove 

Joan B. Holt (claimant) was capable of returning to her pre-injury work as of June 20, 2007; and 

(2) claimant’s continuing disability is causally related to her compensable August 23, 2006 

injury by accident. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its 

final opinion and the reasons set forth in its order denying employer’s motion to vacate and 

reconsider. See Holt v. Sandy River Med. Ctr., VWC File No. 231-34-54 (Mar. 26, 2008); Holt 

v. Sandy River Med. Ctr. et. al., VWC File No. 231-34-54 (April 16, 2008).1 We dispense with 

 *

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

1

 In its April 16, 2008 order denying employer’s motion to vacate and reconsider, the 

commission acknowledged that its March 26, 2008 opinion did not state that the deputy 

commissioner granted employer’s request to strike Dr. Asma Afzal’s opinion. However, the 

commission explained that it did not rely upon Dr. Afzal’s opinion in reaching its decision, but 
- 2 - 

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

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

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 

rather, as stated on page eight of its March 26, 2008 opinion, it relied upon Dr. Robert Cassidy’s 

opinion and claimant’s testimony, taking into account the lack of objective basis for Dr. John 

Mahoney’s opinion.
Bassem Sam ABDIN d/b/a The Car Company of Boone and Ramsey William Abdin, Plaintiffs v. CCC-BOONE, LLC and Blythe Development Co., Defendants and Blythe Development Co., Third-Party Plaintiff v. Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A., Third-Party Defendant

No. 77P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Tyler R. Moffatt, Attorney at Law, Boone, for Abdin, Bassem Sam, et al.

Patrick H. Flanagan, Attorney at Law, Mica Nguyen Worthy, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for CCC-Boone, LLC.

Jeremy S. Foster, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, E. Lang Hunter, Attorney at Law, Jeffrey B. Kuykendal, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Blythe Development Co.

W. James Johnson, Attorney at Law, for Brooks Engineering Associates, P.A.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th of March 2017 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAMES RYAN PILARCIK,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-08-00121-CR

Appeal from

195th District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # F-0773290-N)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Ryan Pilarcik appeals his conviction of delivery of methamphetamine. We dismiss

the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

On February 22, 2008, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a non-negotiated

plea of guilty. The trial court assessed punishment at a fine of $500 and imprisonment for a term

of ten years. Appellant filed notice of appeal that same day and he filed a motion for new trial on

March 4, 2008. On April 27, 2008, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for a new trial on the

issue of punishment, but did not permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty. On June 26, 2008, the

trial court conducted a new punishment hearing and sentenced Appellant to a fine of $500 and

imprisonment for a term of ten years. 

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal following his

sentencing on February22, 2008. However, the trial court subsequently granted Appellant’s request

for a new trial on the issue of punishment only. On June 26, 2008, the trial court conducted a new
 The judgment signed by the trial court on June 26, 2008 is erroneous in that it reflects on its first page in 1

the section labeled “Date Judgment Entered” the date of “2/22/2008.”

punishment hearing and re-sentenced Appellant. Appellant did not file a notice of appeal following 1

the imposition of sentence.

The Rules of Appellate Procedure permit a party in a criminal case to file a premature notice

of appeal where the notice of appeal is filed after a finding of guilt has been made but before

sentencing. See TEX.R.APP.P. 27.1(b)(“In a criminal case, a prematurely filed notice of appeal is

effective and deemed filed on the same day, but after, sentence is imposed or suspended in open

court, or the appealable order is signed by the trial court. But a notice of appeal is not effective if

filed before the trial court makes a finding of guilt or receives a jury verdict.”). The notice of appeal

filed on February 22, 2008 does not constitute a premature notice of appeal because it was filed after

sentence was imposed in open court. The trial court then granted Appellant’s motion for new trial

and conducted a new punishment hearing. Appellant was required to file a new notice of appeal after

the trial court re-sentenced him on June 26, 2008. That notice of appeal was due to be filed on

July 26, 2008, thirty days after the day sentence was imposed in open court. See TEX.R.APP.P.

26.2(a)(1). Because Appellant did not file notice of appeal within this time-frame, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

October 2, 2008 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135615 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

FAROOK MANSOUR,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135615 

 COA: 277570 

WCAC: 05-000284 

AZ AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, f/k/a 

AETNA INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

Petersen v Magna Corp (Docket No. 136542-43) is pending on appeal before this Court 

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case. 

1007 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 10, 2008 

Clerk
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 273RD DISTRIC T COURT OF SAN AUGUS TINE COUNTY, GREETIN G:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 30th
day of October, 2014

, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

RODGER C. FUSSELL , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00165

- CV; Trial Court No. CV

- 12

- 9413

- A

By per curiam opinion.

D.D.B. CHICKEN RANCH , L.L.C., Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court ma de its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution

.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREE D by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution ; and that this decision be certified to

the court below for observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelf

th Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal t hereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 9 th day of January , 201 5

.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
**EXHIBIT      32.**
**2**

| i.                                   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| ii.         | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:                November 29, 2006 |                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                                                                                                                    |
|                                    | /S/                HADDON B.                LIBBY                  |
|                                    | Name:                Haddon B. Libby                                                                                                                    |
|                                    | Title:                Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                           |

----