alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18443]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11353 and <greek-i>11354]


Texas Disaster <greek-i>TX-00297

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1780-DR), dated 07/31/2008.
    Incident: Hurricane Dolly.
    Incident Period: 07/22/2008 and continuing.

DATES: Effective Date: 07/31/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/30/2008.
    Economic Injury (Eidl) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/01/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 07/31/2008, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):
    Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
Texas: Brooks, Starr, Kenedy.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      5.375
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.687
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      8.000
  Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit           5.250
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit           4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 113538 
and for economic injury is 113540.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18443 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30862

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LIONEL BICKHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-15-ALL-J

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lionel Bickham appeals his sentence following his conviction

by a jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Bickham argues that the

district court erred in increasing his offense level pursuant to

Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(5), which provides for a fourlevel increase “[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or

ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” Bickham
1 See United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 511-12 (5th

Cir. 1997); United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1199-1200 (5th

Cir. 1994).

2

admits that the crack cocaine found in his possession was for his

personal use. The firearm, which was present in the vehicle at the

time of his arrest, could have been used to facilitate his drugrelated activities.1 The district court did not err in applying

the adjustment to Bickham’s offense level because the firearm was

possessed in connection with Bickham’s drug possession within the

meaning of Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(5).

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IVAN KILGORE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ALICE OKOROIKE; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 15929

D.C. No. 2:11

- cv

- 01745

- TLN

- DB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 1 2 , 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ivan Kilgore a ppeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 ( 9th Cir. 2004), and we

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. A pp. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 1 7

- 15929

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kilgore

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant was

deliberately indifferent to Kilgore’s pain following surgery. See id. at 1057

- 60

(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence,

or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to

deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by den ying Kilgore’s motion

for leave to amend his complaint to add new claims and defendants after the close

of discovery. See Serra v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting

forth standard of review and factors for permitting leave to amend).

The lack of a specific ruling on Kilgore’s request for judicial notice was not

an abuse of discretion because the requested factual findings from Kilgore’s

previous action were subject to dispute

. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles , 250 F.3d

668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a

court may take judicial notice of matters of public record but may not take judicial

notice of disputed facts). To the extent the district court failed to take notice of

facts that were pr operly the subject of judicial notice, or took notice of disputed

facts, Kilgore was not prejudiced because the district court properly granted

summary judgment notwithstanding any such errors.3 1 7

- 15929

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
EX-4.12



 Exhibit 4.12 

JOINDER AGREEMENT 
 November 22, 2013 

Delhaize Group 
 Square Marie Curie 40 

1070 Brussels 
 Belgium 

Attention: Chief Financial Officer 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to that certain cross-guarantee agreement, dated as of May 21, 2007 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from
time to time, the “Cross-Guarantee Agreement”), by and among Delhaize Group, a limited liability company (“société anonyme”) organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Belgium
(“Delhaize Group”), Delhaize America, LLC, a limited liability company wholly-owned by Delhaize Group organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (“Delhaize America”), and the other
wholly-owned Subsidiaries of Delhaize Group signatory thereto or that have become a party thereto (collectively with Delhaize Group and Delhaize America, the “Guarantors” and individually, a
“Guarantor”). 
 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 
 This letter supplements the Cross-Guarantee Agreement and is delivered by the undersigned, Delhaize America
Distribution, LLC (the “New Guarantor”), pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. The New Guarantor hereby agrees to be bound as a Guarantor by all of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in
the Cross-Guarantee Agreement as of November 22, 2013. Without limiting the foregoing, the New Guarantor hereby makes each of the representations and warranties and agrees to each of the covenants applicable to Guarantors contained in the
Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 
 THIS LETTER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the New Guarantor has caused this letter to be executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer as
of the date first above written. 
  

					
	DELHAIZE AMERICA DISTRIBUTION, LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ G. Linn Evans
		 	Name:	 	G. Linn Evans
		 	Title:	 	Secretary
Exhibit 32.01





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 Anoteros, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George G. Chachas, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:




(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 result of operations of the Company.










__________________________________________


By:
George G. Chachas


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




Dated:
May 9, 2008




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Rose Lasser v. Louis Lasser.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
#### Otis STONE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 4264.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 5, 1938.

R. Clarence Dozier and M. B. Simpson, both of Elizabeth City, N. G, for appellant.

J. O. Carr, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, N. G, Charles F. Rouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kinston, N. G, and John H. Manning, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Raleigh, N. C.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellee. Order filed;
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 604 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 604

       To amend section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
   Reconciliation Act of 1985 (relating to fees for certain customs 
 services) to create an exemption from fees for certain small aircraft 
                      travelling short distances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

 Mr. Gillmor introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
   Reconciliation Act of 1985 (relating to fees for certain customs 
 services) to create an exemption from fees for certain small aircraft 
                      travelling short distances.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 13031 of 
the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
58c) (relating to fees for certain customs services) is amended in 
subsection (b)(1)--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
        subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
            ``(B) the arrival of any passenger aboard any aircraft 
        equipped to carry no more than 11 passengers, if--
                    ``(i) the aircraft is being used to provide 
                transportation only between places that are no more 
                than 50 miles apart;
                    ``(ii) the aircraft is in competition with a ferry; 
                and
                    ``(iii) the fee for such transportation is less 
                than $35;''.
```
EXHIBIT 23.1
------------






                      CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP





The Board of Trustees
AMLI Residential Properties Trust:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-8819, 33-89508 and 33-93120) on Form S-3 and the registration
statements (Nos. 333-8813 and 333-8815) on Form S-8 of AMLI Residential
Properties Trust of our report dated February 23, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of AMLI Residential Properties Trust as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and the related
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of AMLI Residential Properties Trust.








                              KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 19, 1998
#### Jabez C. Pierce, Respondent, v. The Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees of the World, Appellant.

It appearing that there are not four justices of this court qualified to sit in this appeal, said appeal is ordered transferred to the Appellate Division of the third judicial department, to be there heard and determined pursuant to the provisions of section 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Spring and Robson, JJ., not sitting.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Christopher Hedlund v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00378

- CR

Trial court case number: 1749885

Trial court: Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 8 of Harris County

Appellant moves to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand for a new trial

because the reporter’s record has been lost or destroyed , pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure

34.6(f) . Appellant asserts that “no trial trans cript, aside from the voir dire, has been filed.”

The Court’s records reflect that, on November 9, 2012, the court reporter filed volumes 1,

3, and 4 of the reporter’s record. On November 26, 2012, the reporter filed volume 2. The

reporter has informed t he Court that the complete record has been properly filed in the above

referenced case.

After inspection of the record, all of the items listed in the Master Index are included in

the record filed, including a transcript of the trial (opening through closi ng argument),

punishment, and exhibits. The transcript includes testimony by this appellant.

Appellant’s motion to reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for a new trial on the

basis of a lost or destroyed reporter’s record is denied

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 28, 2013
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

p0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144974

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144974

COA: 300508

Wayne CC: 09

- 031216

- FC

JONESAFER LAMAR BLANCH, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12280

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RICHARD HARRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GOODWIN, 

Assistant Warden, 

FOSTER, 

C.O., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12280

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-01155-MMH-JBT

____________________

Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Richard Harris appeals from the magistrate judge’s June 20, 

2023 order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and 

service by publication and to condemn the defendant’s property. 

However, we lack jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate 

judge’s order, and an appeal from such an order must be taken to 

the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Donovan v. Sarasota Concrete 

Co., 693 F.2d 1061, 1066-67 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that magistrate judge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) are not final 

and may not be appealed until rendered final by a district court); 

United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting 

that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from magistrate judges).

Even if the district judge had entered an order affirming the 

magistrate judge’s rulings, those rulings are not final in that they 

did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating 

that a final order ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing 

for the court to do but execute its judgment). And the June 20 

USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-12280 Opinion of the Court 3

order did not dispose of a claim or party, so it could not have been 

certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 54(b); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 

(11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all 

claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable 

absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). 

All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other 

requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-12280 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023 Page: 3 of 3
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of American Paging, Inc., of our report dated
January 29, 1997, on the consolidated financial statements of American Paging,
Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") included in the Company's 1996 Annual
Report to Shareholders, to the inclusion in this Form 10-K of our report dated
January 29, 1997, on the financial statement schedule of the Company, and to the
incorporation of such reports into the Company's previously filed S-8
registration statements, nos. 33-85860, 33-89208, 33-89976 and 333-16811.
 
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 1997
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 601

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise certain provisions

relating to audits of vocational institutions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise

certain provisions relating to audits of vocational institutions.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINANCIAL AND COMPLIANCE AUDITS.

4 Section 487(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Higher Education Act

5 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by strik6 ing ‘‘on at least an annual basis,’’ and inserting ‘‘at least

7 once every 2 years’’.

Æ
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00018-CR

Chris Aguila r, Appe ll ant v. The State of Texas , Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 0991193, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM

Appe llantCh

ri s Agui l ar pl eade d gui l ty to agg ravated s ex

ual ass aul t. SeeTe x. Penal Code An n. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2001). The distri ct court adj udged hi m gui lty and ass essed punishment at i

m pri son men t f or tw en ty-f i v e y ea rs , a s c al l ed f or i n a p l ea b argai n ag re em en t. Ap pe llant filed a g en er al n o t ice o f ap pe al.

Wh en a d efe nd an t ple ad s g uilt y t o a fe lo ny an d t he pu nis hment as se ss ed doe s n ot exceed that recommen

ded by the prosecuto r and agreed to by the defen dant, the notice of appea

l must sta te t hat t he appeal

is for a j urisdi

ctional defec t, o r that t he sub stance of the appe al was rai sed by wri tten moti on a nd rul ed on b ef ore tr i al , or that t he trial

court granted

per mission t o a ppe al. T ex. R. App. P . 25. 2(b)( 3). Appellant’s no t ice o f ap pe al d id n o t co mply w it h t his r ule and f ai ls to confer j urisd i cti on on th i s C our t. Whitt v. St

ate , No . 03 - 00 - 00 19 4- CR ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in Ap r il 19, 2001, no pet . hist. ); see also Cooper v. State , No. 1100- 99, sli

p op. at 6-8 (Tex. Crim. App. April 4, 2001) .2 The app eal is dismissed for want of jur isdict ion. Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Di sm i ss ed f or Wan t of Ju ri sd i cti on File d: April 26, 2001 Do No t Publis

h