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

Judge Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court for the District of

Connecticut, sitting by designation.

10-3910-cr

United States v. Williams

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 20th day of March, two thousand twelve.

PRESENT:

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges,

MARK R. KRAVITZ,*

District Judge.

__________________________________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v. 10-3910-cr

Gary Williams (Federal Prisoner: 47382-053), 

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Gary Williams, pro se, Folkston, Ga.

FOR APPELLEE: Richard M. Tucker, Susan Corkery, Assistant

United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch,

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of

New York.
2

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

York (Gleeson, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant Gary Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment

484 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Williams has abandoned his claim based on

Amendment 439. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995) (claim 

not raised in appellate brief is deemed abandoned). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s determination as to whether the defendant’s

sentence was based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. See United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2009). Section 3582

provides that a district court may reduce a term of imprisonment “after considering the factors

set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent

with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2).

Upon review, we conclude that Williams’s appeal is without merit substantially for the

reasons articulated by the district court in its order. See United States v. Williams, No. 96-cr938, Docket Entry No. 128 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2010).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
# C_2007073EN.01000101.xml

| 30.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4511 — Crédit Agricole/Cariparma/Friuladria)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 73/01)

On 27 February 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4511. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4511. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### Milorad TEODOR OLIC, aka Milorad Olic, Petitioner, v. *191Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73895, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Milorad Teodor Olic, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Julia K. Doig, Esq., Deborah N. Misir, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Milorad Olic, a native of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and citizen of Serbia-Montenegro, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent Olic challenges BIA decisions denying previous motions to reopen or reconsider, we lack jurisdiction of those decisions because Olic did not file petitions for review within thirty days. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Olic’s instant motion to reconsider because he failed to articulate a legal or factual error in the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); *see also Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.2003). Olic’s motion to reopen was both numerically barred and time barred and Olic did not establish he was eligible for a waiver of either condition. *See 8*C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3). Accordingly, the BIA’s refusal to reconsider the denial of Olic’s motion to reopen was neither arbitrary, irrational nor contrary to law. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and the stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

Officer’s Certification Pursuant to 

Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

(18 U.S.C 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation, (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of hisknowledge: 

(1)    The Report is in full compliance with the requirements ofSection 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: February 16, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 66890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5212]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Antonello da Messina: Sicily's Renaissance Master''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Antonello da Messina: Sicily's Renaissance 
Master,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with foreign lenders. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about December 12, 2005, until 
on or about March 5, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8049). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: October 27, 2005.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-21937 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.78

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                TO THE HANOVER DIRECT SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN
                  (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF JULY 1, 1999)

        The Hanover Direct Savings and Retirement Plan (As Amended and Restated
as of July 1, 1999) is hereby amended effective March 1, 2002 by deleting
Section 3.04 thereof and substituting the following therefor:

        "3.04 Matching Employer Contributions.

        "An Employer may elect, in its sole discretion, to make Matching
Employer Contributions for a Plan Year for each Active Eligible Participant (as
hereinafter defined) on whose behalf Salary Deferral Contributions have been
made during the Plan Year. For purposes of this Section 3.04, an "Active
Eligible Participant" means (i) with respect to Salary Deferral Contributions
made prior to March 1, 2002, an Active Participant, and (ii) with respect to
Salary Deferral Contributions made on or after March 1, 2002, an Active
Participant who is employed by an Employer on the last day of the Plan Year and
has at least 1,000 Hours of Service during the Plan Year.

        "For any Plan Year, the Matching Employer Contributions (including any
forfeitures reallocated in accordance with Section 3.10) shall be allocated to
the Accounts of such Active Eligible Participants for the Plan Year in the same
proportion as the amount of Salary Deferral Contributions (not in excess of six
percent (6.0%) of the Participant's Compensation) for each such Active
Participant for such Plan Year bears to the total Salary Deferral Contribution
(as so limited) for all such Active Participants for such Plan Year. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, Salary Deferral Contributions and
Compensation shall be taken into account only with respect to periods when a
Participant is an Active Eligible Participant."


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Hanover Direct, Inc. has adopted this instrument
this ___ day of ____________, 2002.

                                            HANOVER DIRECT, INC.


                                            -----------------------
                                            By:
Exhibit (99.2)

 Written Statement of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

       Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant
Energy Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/  Thomas M. Walker
---------------------
Thomas M. Walker
August 9, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION    EXTRACTED   FROM   THE   INTER-TEL,
                              INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                              FOR  THE  YEAR  ENDED  DECEMBER  31,  1996  AND IS
                              QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

                              ALL  INFORMATION  FOR THIS  PERIOD  IS THE SAME AS
                              PREVIOUSLY  STATED,  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NEW
                              EARNINGS PER SHARE REPORTING  REQUIREMENTS  (SHOWN
                              BELOW):
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          38,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3096
<INVENTORY>                                     21,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,465
<PP&E>                                          26,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,875
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,611
<SALES>                                        185,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,884
<CGS>                                          104,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,746
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,306
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,264
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,042
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67193-67194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22020]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-401 (Review) and 731-TA-853 and 854 
(Review)]


Structural Steel Beams from Japan and Korea

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject reviews.

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

Dates: Effective October 19, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Tortorice (202-205-3032) or 
Douglas Corkran (202-205-3057), Office of Investigations, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 
Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by 
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with 
mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access 
to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-
205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be 
obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The 
public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission's 
electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective September 9, 2005, the Commission 
established a schedule for the conduct of the subject reviews (70 FR 
54962, September 19, 2005). Subsequently, counsel for domestic 
interested parties requested that the Commission extend the date for 
filing prehearing briefs by two business days to alleviate the hardship 
placed on administrative personnel.\1\ Counsel suggested no other

[[Page 67194]]

change to the schedule. Absent objection from any other party, the 
Commission is revising its schedule. The deadline for filing prehearing 
briefs is January 4, 2006. The Commission's original schedule is 
otherwise unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter to the Secretary of the Commission from Wiley Rein & 
Fielding, on behalf of Nucor Corp., Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., Steel 
Dynamics, Inc., and Chaparral Steel Company, dated September 25, 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information concerning these reviews see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: October 31, 2005.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-22020 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
* The Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange, United States D istrict Judge

of the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by des ignation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 23 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID FLENKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-3242

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (D.C. No. 95-2480-KHV)
Stephen J. Dennis, Dennis, Stanton & Redlingshafer, L.L.C., Fairway, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Rody P. Biggert (Andrew M. Altschul with him on bri efs), Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, Illinois, for Def endant-Appellee.

Before HENRY , LUCERO , and MILES-LAGRANGE , * Circuit Judges.

HENRY , Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered i n favor of an2

employer, Willamette Industries, Inc. (“Willamette” ), in a tort action under Kansas law for retaliatory discharge. The district court held that plaintiffappellant Mr. Flenker's retaliatory discharge claimwas precluded because section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“O SHA”), 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c) (1994), provided him an adequate alternative remedy . Mr. Flenker appealed. Because we determined that resolution of the appeal turned on an unsettled issue of Kansas law, we certified the following que stion to the Kansas Supreme Court: “Does the remedy provided by OSHA § 11(c) fo r employees who allege that they have been discharged in retaliation for f iling complaints under that statute preclude the filing of a Kansas common law wrongful discharge claim under Kansas's public policy exception to at-will e mployment?” The Kansas Supreme Court, under the facts submitted to it in o ur certification, answered “no.” Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc. , No. 80408, 1998 WL 771624, at *5, *10 (Kan. Nov. 6, 1998) . Applying the Kansas Supreme Court's answer here, wehold that OSHA § 11(c) does not preclude Mr. Flenker's Kansas commonlaw wrongful discharge claim. Thus, with the benefit of this decision pre viously unavailable to the district court, we now VACATE the grant of summary judgment to Willamette and REMAND for further proceedings.
(b) (2)