alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60306 Conference Calendar

LOUELLA FAY YOUNG STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RANKIN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; ROBERT PEEDEE ET AL., Defendants, BRANDON CARTER ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:95-CV-85BN

- - - - - - - - - - June 18, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Louella Strickland, Mississippi prisoner #72676, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on her appeal from the dismissal of her civil rights action as frivolous. Strickland’s motion is GRANTED. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)No. 96-60306 - 2 - requires a prisoner appealing IFP in a civil action to pay the full amount of the filing fee, $105. As Strickland does not have funds for immediate payment of this fee, she is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $3.49, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Following payment of the initial partial filing fee, the remainder will be deducted from Strickland’s prison trust-fund account until the entire filing fee is paid. § 1915(b)(2). IT IS ORDERED that Strickland authorize the appropriate prison authorities to withdraw the initial partial filing fee in accordance with the procedures required by the prison and to forward payment to the clerk of the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Strickland’s inmate account shall collect the remainder of the $105 filing fee and forward for payment, in accordance with § 1915(b)(2), to the clerk of the District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi each time the amount in Strickland’s account exceeds $10, until the appellate filing fee is paid. Strickland contends that the facility in which she is imprisoned is overcrowded and lacks air-conditioning in some buildings and that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to her medical needs. Strickland discusses the relevant law but references no facts relevant to her particular situation. Nor does she attempt to apply the law to the facts of her case.No. 96-60306 - 3 - Strickland has failed to brief any issues for appeal. Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995). Consequently, her appeal is dismissed as frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### Victor E. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 03-3204.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 1, 2003.

ORDER

Petitioner having filed the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, and having filed the required brief, it is

ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4961

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDALL G. SCOTT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00426-TLW-1)

Submitted: March 11, 2022 Decided: April 21, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall G. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Randall G. Scott pleaded guilty to a superseding information charging him with

possession of firearms and ammunition as a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted 

to a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). The district 

court sentenced Scott to 30 months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release. 

The court also ordered Scott to pay a special assessment of $100.

Scott appealed, and while the appeal was pending before this court, Scott died. For 

the reasons explained below, we dismiss Scott’s appeal as moot and remand to the district 

court with instructions to vacate Scott’s conviction and sentence, including the special 

assessment; to refund any portion of the special assessment that has already been paid; and 

to dismiss the indictment and the superseding information.

We have recognized that an appellant’s “[d]eath pending appeal of a criminal 

conviction abates not only the appeal but all proceedings in the prosecution from its 

inception. In such a case, the appeal is dismissed and the cause remanded to the district 

court with instructions to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the indictment.” United States 

v. Dudley, 739 F.2d 175, 176 (4th Cir. 1984) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017). An 

appellant’s death during the pendency of a criminal appeal also requires an abatement of a

special assessment and a refund of any already paid portion of a special assessment. See 

United States v. Robertson, 980 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2020); United States v. Brooks, 872 

F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2017); United States v. Libous, 858 F.3d 64, 69 (2d Cir. 2017).
3

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot and remand to the district court with 

instructions to vacate Scott’s conviction and sentence, including the special assessment; to 

refund any portion of the special assessment that has already been paid; and to dismiss the 

indictment and the superseding information. We also deny as moot Scott’s motion to 

appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6991 

JERRY LEE WINSLOW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. W. ARMENTROUT, Warden; T. EVANS, CIRC/LL

Clerk,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:05-cv-00727-jlk-mf)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Lee Winslow, Appellant Pro Se. Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lee Winslow appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Winslow v.

Armentrout, No. 7:05-cv-00727-jlk-mf (W.D. Va. Apr. 28, 2006). 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
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review R21s and R03s.
    Date: October 15, 2008.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National lnstitutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jonathan Horsford, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Natl Inst of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National 
Insitutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd, Room 664,Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-594-4859, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy,
[FR Doc. E8-20430 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 The 2010 Annual Revision (440 KB PDF)  Table 10 Revisions to industrial production and capacity utilization after incorporating benchmark information  Item
    Averagerevison
    Mean-absoluterevisionTotal industrial production
    .1
    .8Total industry capacity utilization
    .0
    .4 Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
<PAGE> 


                                                                  Exhibit 11
                               J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.
                             and Consolidated Subsidiaries
                                            
                       Computation of Net Income Per Common Share
                   (Amounts in millions except per common share data)





                                                  39 Weeks Ended             
                                     ___________________________________________
                                     October 31, 1998        October 25, 1997
                                     --------------------   --------------------
                                     Shares      Income     Shares      Income  
                                     _______     ________   _______     ________

     Basic

     Net income                                  $   387                $   342
     Dividend on Series B ESOP
       convertible preferred stock
       (after-tax)                                   (28)                   (30)
                                                 _______                _______
     Adjusted net income                             359                    312

     Weighted average number of
       shares outstanding             253.3                  246.3              
                                      _____      _______     _____      _______
                                      253.3      $   359     246.3      $   312
                                      =====      =======     =====      =======

     Net income per common share                 $  1.42                $  1.27
                                                 =======                =======



     Diluted

     Net income                                  $   387                $   342
     Tax benefit differential on ESOP
       dividend assuming stock is
       fully converted                                -                      -
     Assumed additional contribution
       to ESOP if preferred stock is
       fully converted                                (1)                    (2)
                                                 _______                _______
     Adjusted net income                             386                    340

     Weighted average number of
       shares outstanding (basic)     253.3                  246.3
     Common stock equivalents:
       Stock options and other
       dilutive effect                  2.0                    2.4
     Convertible preferred stock       16.7                   18.4              
                                      _____      _______     _____      _______
                                      272.0      $   386     267.1      $   340
                                      =====      =======     =====      =======

     Net income per common share                 $  1.42                $  1.25
                                                 =======                =======
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A0 30 3 . SYLVESTER RI CHARDSON v . THE STATE.

A ju ry fo u n d Sy l v es t er Ri ch ard s o n g u il t y o f m al i ce m u rd er an d o t h er cri m es

. He was s en t en ced t o two co n secu t i v e l ife sen t en ces p l u s fi ve y ears

. Ri ch ard s o n fi l ed

a t i m el y m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed as to h i s co n v i ct i o n s fo r

m al i ce m u rd er an d po s s es s i on o f a fi rearm d u ri n g t h e co m m i s s io n o f a fel o n y

. 1 Aft er

h e was g r an t ed t h e ri g h t t o fi l e an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

, Ri ch ard s on fi l ed t h e i n s t an t

d i rect ap p eal

. Un d er o u r Co ns t it u t i o n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d ict i o n o v er

“ [a] l l cas es i n w h ich a s en t en ce o f d eat h was i m p o s ed o r co ul d b e i m

p o s ed .” Ga.

Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y of d eat h can b e

i m p o s ed fo r t he cri m e o f m al ice m u rd er, ju ri s d ict i o n i s p ro per in t he Su prem e Co u rt

. S e e O C GA § 1 6 -5 -1 (a), (e) (1 ); Nea l v. S ta t e , 2 90 Ga. 5 6 3, 5 7 2 (7 2 2 SE2 d 7 6 5 )

(2 0 1 2) (Hu n st ei n , C. J., co n cu rri n g ); s ee al s o S t at e v. Th o r n t on , 2 5 3 Ga. 5 2 4

, 5 2 4 (1 )

(3 2 2 SE2 d 7 1 1 ) (1 9 8 4 ) (d i rect i n g t h i s Co urt t o t ran s fer “ al l cas es i n w h i ch ei t h er a

s en t en ce o f d eat h o r of l i fe i m p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m

p o s ed u po n co n v ict i o n o f

m u rd er”).

1 Th e tri al co u rt v acat ed Ri ch ard s o n ’ s co n v i ct io n fo r arm ed ro b b ery an d s t at ed

t h at h e wo u l d be re-s en t en ced at a l at er d at e. September 16, 2019Acco rd i ng l y , Ri ch ard s o n ’ s ap p eal i s hereb y T RANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt fo r d i s po s it i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 09/16/2019
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52340-52341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-13235-000]


Middlebury Electric, LLC; Notice of Application for Preliminary 
Permit Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to 
Intervene, and Protests

September 2, 2008.
    On June 5, 2008, Middlebury Electric, LLC filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to study the 
feasibility of Middlebury Upper Hydroelectric Project. The proposed 
project would be located on the Otter Creek in Addison County, Vermont. 
The properties that would be associated with the proposed Middlebury 
Upper Hydroelectric Project are owned by the applicant.
    The proposed project using the existing properties, including the 
sluiceway, intake infrastructure, and flume, would consist of: (1) A 
proposed powerhouse, containing a single 400 kW generating unit; (2) a 
proposed penstock approximately 120 feet long, 7.5 feet wide; (3) a 
proposed new transmission line around 500 feet long; and (4) 
appurtenant facilities. The proposed

[[Page 52341]]

project would have an average annual generation of approximately 2.8 
gigawatt-hours, to be utilized by Middlebury College.
    Applicant Contact: Dr. Anders Holm, 1330 Exchange Street, 
Middlebury, VT 05445, (802) 233-9606.
    FERC Contact: Jake Tung, (202) 502-8757.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13235) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20804 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,244
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,652
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           380
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,408)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,244
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,222)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,222)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit16.1**    (J.H. COHN LOGO)     March 26, 2007     Securities and Exchange Commission    100 F Street, N.E.    Washington, D.C. 20549-7561     Dear Sirs:     We have read “Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants    on Accounting and Financial Disclosure”, included in the    draft Annual Report on    Form 10-K    (copy attached) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006    to be filed by ORBCOMM, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange    Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as    amended, on or about March 27, 2007. We agree with the    statements therein concerning our Firm.     Very truly yours,     (-s- J.H. COHN LLP) /s/  J.H.    Cohn LLP     MS:lb     Enclosures *4 Becker Farm Road • P.O.    Box 954 • Roseland, NJ 07068-0954 • 888-542-6461    • fax 888-542-3291 • www.jhcohn.com**Offices in New York, New Jersey,    California and the Cayman Islands • Worldwide Associations    Including Member Firms of SC International*