alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2740

___________ Michael T. Risinger, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. * Michael J. Astrue, * [UNPUBLISHED] Commissioner, Social Security * Administration, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 10, 2008 Filed: March 28, 2008

___________ Before RILEY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Michael T. Risinger’s application for disability insurance benef its, finding that the Commissioner of Social Security properly found, at step four of the social security sequential analysis, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f), that Risi nger had the residual functional1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- capacity to perform his past relevant wo rk as a fast food worker. The Appeals Council denied further revie w, and the district court 1 affirmed the denial of benefits. After carefully reviewing the administrativ e record and the parties’ briefs, Hepp v. Astrue , 511 F.3d 798, 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s decision. The record reflects that Risinger’s treating physician, Dr. Barton, gave two conflicting opinions about Risinger’s physical abilities within the same document. Neither of Dr. Barton’s conclusory opinions as to Risinger’s physical abilities were supported by objective medical evidence. Risinger’s description of his activities of daily living in his testimony before the ALJ, as well as his reports to other physicians, belie the level of restriction Dr. Barton’s opinions place on Risi nger. None of the other physicians who examined Risinger, at the request of e ither the Commissioner or Dr. Barton, found it necessary to so severely restrict Risi nger’s activities. The ALJ acknowledged Dr. Barton’s opinions; however, the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in discounting these opinions in light of the inconsistent evid ence of record. The ALJ correctly discounted the opinion of the treating physic ian. Samons v. Astrue , 497 F.3d 813, 819 (8th Cir. 2007) (ALJ is entitled to discount the opinion of treating physician when the opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the eviden ce of record). Further, we find the district court properly concluded that the Commissione r’s denial of Risinger’s application for disability benefits was supported by s ubstantial evidence. Flynn v. Astrue , 513 F.3d 788, 792 (8th Cir. 2008) (Social Security Co mmissioner’s denial of benefits must be supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole). Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21458]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7989-8]


OMB Responses Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency published a document in the 
Federal Register of September 21, 2005, concerning OMB's responses. The 
document contained incorrect information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Auby, (202) 566-1672.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of September 21, 2005, in FR Doc. 05-18836, 
on page 55377, in the first column, correct the agency to read 
Environmental Protection Agency, and in the second column, remove the 
OMB number 2060-0417 from the EPA ICR No. 2196.01 and add the OMB 
number to the entry for EPA ICR No. 1788.07 to read:
    EPA ICR No. 1788.07; NESHAP for Oil and Gas Production Facilities 
(proposed rule); OMB Number 2060-0417; on 09/09/2005 OMB filed a 
comment.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 05-21458 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No

. 04 -0 8- 00 92 0- CR J acob SAN M IG UE L , Appellant

v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 187th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-8798B Honora ble Ray mond Ang elini, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J anuar y 28, 2009 DI SMI SSED FOR WANT OF JURI SDI CTI ON The trial c ourt imposed sentenc e on Decembe r 20, 2007. B eca use appe llant did not file a motion for new tria l, appellant’s notice of appea l was due to be filed by J anuar y 21, 2008. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a) . Appellant, ho we v er , d i d not file his notice of a ppeal until Dec ember

15, 2008. Gi ve n th e fa c t th a t a

pp e lla nt’ s noti c e of a

pp e a l wa s not t ime ly

fi le d, we a re wi tho ut j ur isd ic tio n to enter tain this appeal. Se e Ol iv o v . S tat e , 9 1 8 S. W. 2 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 2 ( T e x. Cr im

. App. 1996). Acc ording ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of jurisdiction. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , No. 06-10527

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 

#  CR-98-00114-FCD D EANGELO D OMINGO D AVIS , OPINION

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2008—San Francisco, California

Filed March 19, 2008 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, John T. Noonan, and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion

2629COUNSEL
Matthew M. Robinson, Robinson & Brandt, P.S.C., Cincinnati, Ohio, for the defendant-appellant. McGregor W. Scott, United States Attorney, and William S.Wong, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We issued a limited remand in this case with instructions to the district court to take two specific actions: 1) strike theconviction and the sentence as to count four; and 2) determine, in accordance with United States v. Ameline , 409 F.3d 2630 U NITED S TATES v. D AVIS1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it been aware thatthe Sentencing Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. See United States v. Davis , 138 F. App’x. 914, 915 (9th Cir. 2005). On remand, the district court struck the conviction and the sentence as to count four. The court also declared that it would not have imposed a different sentence on Davis had itknown that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. The district court then went on, however, to reconsider Davis’s sentence as to count three, increasing it substantially. [1] Where this court expressly limits the scope of remand,the district court is without authority to reexamine other sentencing issues on remand. United States v. Pimentel , 34 F.3d 799, 800 (9th Cir. 1994). In this case, the district court exceeded its authority when it increased Davis’s sentence on count three. We therefore vacate Davis’s sentence and instruct the district court to reimpose his original sentence, except that no sentence shall be imposed on count four. No adjustment shall be made with respect to any other count. **1**

VACATED AND REMANDED for the sole purpose of resentencing as provided in this opinion.

**1** Because the district court lacked authority to resentence Davis except in accordance with the instructions contained in the limited mandate, we do not consider Davis’s other challenges to the sentence. 2631

U NITED S TATES v. D AVIS
<Page>


                                     EXHIBIT 11


              INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    Computation of Earnings per Common Share
                                   (unaudited)

                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED       SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                     --------------------    --------------------
                                     Sept. 1,    Aug. 26,     Sept. 1,   Aug. 26,
                                       2001        2000         2001       2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                  <C>         <C>          <C>        <C>
Average shares of
   common stock outstanding            18,816      18,740       18,789     18,738
Dilutive potential common shares          245         144          228         83
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total adjusted average shares          19,061      18,884       19,017     18,821
=================================================================================

Net earnings applicable
   to common stock                    $ 2,794     $ 5,279      $ 4,880    $10,029
=================================================================================

Earnings per share of common stock:
   Basic                              $   .15     $   .28      $   .26    $   .54
=================================================================================
   Diluted                            $   .15     $   .28      $   .26    $   .53
=================================================================================
</Table>


Basic earnings share are computed by dividing net earnings by the weighted
average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.

Diluted earnings per share are computed similar to basic earnings per share
except that the weighted average shares outstanding are increased to include
additional shares from the assumed exercise of stock options, if dilutive. The
number of additional shares is calculated by assuming that outstanding stock
options were exercised and the proceeds from such exercises were used to acquire
shares of common stock at the average market price during the period.
# L_2007323EN.01005901.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 323/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 323/59

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2007/775/EC of 13 November 2007 repealing Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, Hungary, India, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 312 of 30 November 2007
  )

The publication of Decision 2007/775/EC should be considered as null and void.

---
#### Michael Daly, Appellant, *v.*Joseph Haight, Individually and as Supervisor of the Town of Rye, et al., Respondents.

*Daly*v. *Haight,*170 App. Div. 469, affirmed.

(Argued November 15, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 24, 1915, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial in a taxpayer’s action brought pursuant to section 51 of the General Municipal Law, to recover money paid by Haight, as supervisor of the town of Rye, to one Spencer. In 1902 *727the town board of Rye passed a resolution that Spencer be appointed an assistant in the town rooms to attend to the public in general and to give the supervisor, receiver of taxes and town clerk such assistance as they may need, the appointment to be at the pleasure of the town board and the expense to become a town charge. The Special Term held that the resolution of employment was illegal, without authority and void and that the said payments were illegally made and directed judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Appellate Division reversed on the ground that a taxpayer’s action would not lie in the absence of allegations of collusion, fraud or bad faith.

*W. C. Prime*for appellant.

*Henry C. Henderson*and *Walter A. Ferris*for Joseph Haight, respondent.

*Arthur I. Strang*for Arthur R. Spencer, respondent.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute-ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       192,590,516
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   3,037,455
<MORTGAGE>                                  16,150,027
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  383,799
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             222,839,847
<CASH>                                       3,176,822
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             155,828
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      26,585,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             285,907,021
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            203,176,223
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         18,883,830
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,789,683
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,838,517
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,446,837
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,508,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               285,907,021
<PREMIUMS>                                  30,344,711
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         10,539,966
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             177,288
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 257,274
<BENEFITS>                                  13,458,614
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  (139,453)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        25,166,277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,833,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                   595,098
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,238,703
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,238,703
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT ON CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION 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>                             OCT-31-1999<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                            6,700
<SECURITIES>                                    104,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,295,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (9,900)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                           14,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (8,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,029,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                       1,505,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      111,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,029,800
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 85,100
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    22,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 11,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               20,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  29,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (11,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              17,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     17,700
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<FN>
<F1>  THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>





</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00199

- CR

Jorge MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR1083

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d).

SIGNED May 22, 2013.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
EXHIBIT 12(a)


               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
            SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(millions, except ratios)                               Year Ended
                                              --------------------------------
                                              1997   1996    1995    1994    1993
<S>                                          <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Fixed Charges
 Interest and amortization of debt discount
   and expense on all indebtedness           $1,409  $1,365  $1,373  $1,279  $1,318
                                                                             
 Add interest element implicit in rentals       147     121     119     114     105
                                             ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
                                              1,556   1,486   1,492   1,393   1,423
  Interest capitalized                            3       5       4       1       3
                                             ------   -----   -----   -----  ------
Total fixed charges                          $1,559  $1,491  $1,496  $1,394  $1,426
                                                                            
Income (loss)                                                                         
 Income (loss) from continuing operations    $1,188  $1,271  $1,025    $857    $625
 Deduct undistributed net income (loss)
  of unconsolidated companies                    13       8       9      (7)      6
                                             ------  ------  ------  ------- ------
                                              1,175   1,263   1,016     864     619
Add                                                                          
 Fixed charges 
  (excluding interest capitalized)            1,556   1,486   1,492   1,393   1,423
 Income taxes (benefit)                         912     834     703     614     329
    Income (loss) before fixed charges and
     income taxes                            $3,643  $3,583  $3,211  $2,871  $2,371
                                                                             
Ratio of income to fixed charges               2.34    2.40    2.15    2.06     1.66
</TABLE>
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
  (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.
 Signature:
    
    /s/ Steven G. RollsSteven G. RollsChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)Date:
    
    November 6, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Balance
Sheet,  Statement  of  Operations,  Statement  of Cash  Flows and Notes  thereto
incorporated  in this Form 10-QSB and is  qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          61,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,358,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (51,961)
<INVENTORY>                                    565,151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,955,003
<PP&E>                                         221,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (32,975)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,404,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,653,641
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    200,000
<COMMON>                                       291,902
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,252,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,404,034
<SALES>                                      4,045,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,045,914
<CGS>                                        3,697,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,422,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,073,871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,073,871)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.037)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.037)




</TABLE>