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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1362

PALMER BALTHIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District

Judge. (CA-00-34-2)

Submitted: September 10, 2001 Decided: September 21, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger W. Rutherford, Erick A. Bowman, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region

III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Taryn Goldstein,

Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ruth E.

Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, John F. Corcoran, Assistant

United States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Palmer Balthis appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security in

Balthis’s action for disability insurance benefits under Title II

of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433 (West Supp.

2001). Balthis worked in the coal mining industry until June 21,

1996, when he stopped working because of heart problems, back pain

and hearing loss. This court must uphold the denial of benefits if

the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct

legal standard was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); Craig v.

Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the entire administrative record, including additional evidence submitted

to the Appeals Council, and find substantial evidence supports the

Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Balthis was able to

return to his past relevant work. Therefore, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Balthis v. Massanari, No. CA-00-34-2

(W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40725 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE ARMANDO BAZAN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:16

- CR

- 1376

- 4

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant

- Appellant Jose Armando Bazan appeals the 24

- month sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. For the first time on appeal, Bazan contends that the district court plainly e rred in failing to award an offense level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for having a mitigating role in the offense.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 28, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40725 Document: 00515014633 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2019No. 18

- 40725

2 Whether Bazan was a minor or minimal participant under § 3B1.2 is a factual determination. See United States v. Villanueva , 408 F.3d 1 93, 203 (5th Cir. 2005). Because th is issue was a question of fact capable of resolution at sentencing , the issue “can never constitute plain error.” United States v.
Fierro , 38 F.3d 761, 774 (5th Cir. 1994)

. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 18-40725 Document: 00515014633 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2019
#### In the Interest of A.S.C. and J.L.C., Respondents, v. A.C. and F.C., Appellants.

No. 60207.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 3, 1992.

*388Steven Mark Davis, Private Atty., Arnold, Nanci Wisdom, Guardian Ad Litem, Hillsboro, for appellants.

Theodore R. Allen, Jr., Private Atty., Hillsboro, for respondents.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Parents appeal the order of the judge of the juvenile division terminating their parental rights in their daughter, A.S.C., and their son, J.L.C. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending July 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Ullrich E. Porzig, Senior Vice President — Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: September 6, 2006       /s/ Ullrich E. Porzig         Ullrich E. Porzig
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5568]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration


Advisory Committee; Establishment

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In response to comments from the mining community, the Mine 
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is expanding the membership of 
its proposed advisory committee to eliminate pneumoconiosis among coal 
miners. To allow time for the mining community to respond to this 
change, MSHA is extending the comment period on the establishment of 
the advisory committee.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Office of Standards, 
Regulations and Variances, MSHA, Room 631, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office 
of Standards, Regulations and Variances, MSHA, (703) 235-1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 31, 1995, the Secretary of Labor 
published a notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 5947) announcing the 
establishment of an advisory committee on the elimination of 
pneumoconiosis among coal miners. Comments regarding the establishment 
of the committee were due on March 1, 1995, as indicated in a notice 
extending the comment period published on February 17, 1995 (60 FR 
9411).
    In the January 1995 notice, MSHA announced that there would be 
seven committee members: one representing labor, one representing 
industry, and five persons who have no economic interest in the 
industry. In the comments received to date, several members of the 
mining community requested that the committee be expanded to include 
two labor representatives and two industry representatives. In response 
to these comments, MSHA has amended the proposed charter. With this 
notice, MSHA is announcing a nine-person advisory committee: two 
representing labor, two representing industry, and five persons who 
have no economic interest in the industry. To allow persons sufficient 
time to comment on this change, MSHA is extending the comment period 
until March 17, 1995.

    Dated: March 2, 1995.
Andrea M. Hricko,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 95-5568 Filed 3-2-95; 3:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3619

ECM Industries LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6983]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PR95-8-000]


Arkansas Western Gas Co.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

March 16, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1995, Arkansas Western Gas Company 
(AWG) filed pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's 
regulations, a petition for rate approval requesting that the 
Commission approve as fair and equitable a maximum rate of $0.1300 per 
MMBtu, plus 3.1 percent for compressor fuel and lost and unaccounted 
for gas, for transportation services performed under section 311(a)(2) 
of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    AWG states that it is an intrastate pipeline within the meaning of 
section 2(16) of the NGPA and it owns and operates an intrastate 
pipeline system in the State of Arkansas. AWG proposes an effective 
date of March 3, 1995.
    Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not 
act within 150 days of the filing date, the rate will be deemed to be 
fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount which interstate 
pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar transportation 
service. The Commission may, prior to the expiration of the 150-day 
period, extend the time for action or institute a proceeding to afford 
parties an opportunity for written comments and for the oral 
presentation of views, data, and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with sections 385.211 and 
385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All 
motions must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before 
March 31, 1995. The petition for rate approval is on file with the 
Commission and is available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6983 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### John R. WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51556.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 30, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 28, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 20, 1996.

Jarrett A. Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

• Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and SPINDEN and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from dismissal of Rule 29.15 motion without evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3286

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4732]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,578]


McKay Drilling Co.; Aurora, CO and Operating at Other Sites in 
the Following States: TA-W-30,578A North Dakota; TA-W-30,578B Wyoming; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By an application dated January 30, 1995, one of the petitioners 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's notice of 
termination of investigation. The notice was issued on January 13, 1995 
and published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5440).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    Investigation findings show that McKay Drilling ceased operations 
in January, 1986 when all the workers were separated.
    Your petition dated December 1, 1994 sought TAA for the McKay 
Drilling workers. However, the worker separations of more than eight 
years ago are out of scope for any consideration for trade adjustment 
assistance. The statute (Trade Act of 1974) at Section 223 specifically 
states that no certification shall apply to any worker whose separation 
was more than one year prior to the date of the petition. Accordingly, 
the investigation was terminated since it would serve no purpose to 
continue.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of February, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-4732 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
ACCEPTED 06-15-00143-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/1/2015 4:49:26 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6989]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-325-000]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

March 16, 1995.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Friday, March 24, 1995, at 10 a.m., at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the possible 
settlement of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant, as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, contact Carmen Gastilo at (202) 208-
2182 or Kathleen Dias at (202) 208-0524.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6989 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00120

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.H.S.

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 17261

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of

appeal are taxed against Appellant James Enger.

SIGNED July 25, 2018.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of January 3, 1999 and Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the Transition Period then Ended and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Jan-3-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  Jan-3-1999
<CASH>                                              $1,095
<SECURITIES>                                           127
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                           551
<INVENTORY>                                          9,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    20,825
<PP&E>                                              65,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     101,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              103,486
<BONDS>                                                780
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               126
<OTHER-SE>                                         (5,220)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       101,864
<SALES>                                             26,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    26,194
<CGS>                                               25,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       25,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       483
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (8,420)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            67
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (8,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (8,487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.73)
        

</TABLE>
Ex-31)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey Mayer, certify that:

l. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Structured Asset Mortgage
Investments Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-2.

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in
the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the
terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and except as
disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. as Trustee
Cendant Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
IndyMac Bank F.S.B. as Servicer


Date: March 26, 2004



                                      -7-
<PAGE>



                                   By: /s/ Jeffrey Mayer
                                       ------------------------------
                                   Name: Jeffrey Mayer
                                   Company: Structured Asset Mortgage
                                            Investments Inc.
                                   Title: President






                                      -8-