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

___________ No. 04-2105

___________ T. W. Johnson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Natalie Jones, Correctional Officer, * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * [UNPUBLISHED] Patricia Stokes, Correctional Officer, * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Jamaal Davenport, Correctional Officer, * EARU, ADC (originally sued as * Davenport), * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 19, 2005 Filed: May 24, 2005

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- Arkansas inmate T. W. Johnson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Jolly v. Knudsen , 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Johnson cannot seek damages based on his assertion that defendants failed to protect him from the possibility he could have been the victim when one inmate attacked another. SeeDoe v. Welborn , 110 F.3d 520, 523 (7th Cir. 1997). Further, Johnson’s assertion that defendant Officer Natalie Johnson retaliated against him and conspired with others to retaliate against him because Johnson ended an affair with her does not state an actionable claim of retaliation or conspiracy. See Nei v. Dooley , 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (conduct that retaliates against exercise of constitutionally protected right is actionable); Askew v. Millerd , 191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999) (to prove § 1983 conspiracy claim, plaintiff must show constitutional deprivation occurred). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending May 1, 2021

----

Forms            Forms -- initial Board review to extend with revision the International Applications and Prior Notifications under Subparts A and C of Regulation K (FR K-1) and Report of Selected Money Market Rates (FR 2420); final Board review to extend with revision the Government Securities Dealers Reports (FR 2004); and final Board review to extend without revision the Senior Financial Officer Surveys (FR 2023), Survey of Consumer Finances (FR 3059), and Quarterly Report of Assets and Liabilities of Large Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks (FR 2502q).            -Approved, April 29, 2021            Supervision and Regulation            Supervision and Regulation -- semiannual report.            -Published, April 30, 2021            Enforcement            Barclays Bank PLC, New York Branch, New York, New York -- issuance of a consent cease-and-desist order and order for assessment of civil money penalty against Peter Little, a former institution-affiliated party of the New York Branch of Barclays.            -Approved, April 20, 2021            (A/C)                      Texas Community Bank, Laredo, Texas -- consent order of prohibition against Raul Cavazos, a former institution-affiliated party.            -Announced, April 29, 2021            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for theyear ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laura Beth Butler, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/Laura Beth Butler          Laura Beth ButlerChief Financial OfficerDate:  March 13, 2009

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7297** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL ANTHONY CHERRY, a/k/a Pops , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr
- 00040

- RLV

- DSC

- 1 )

Submitted : December 13 , 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Anthony Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Cherry appeals a district court order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c) (2006). The district court found Cherry was not eligible for a reduction under the recen t amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines because his sentence was based, not on a
quantity of crack cocaine, but on his career offender status.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Cherry’s motion for a sentence red uction. United

States v. Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating
standard of review). Accordingl y, we affirm the district

court’ s order. We deny Cherry’s motion for appointment of

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process .
AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2732

___________ David Hackett, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of the Internal Revenue * [UNPUBLISHED] Service, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 24, 1997

Filed: February 11, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. David Hackett appeals the tax court's decision sustaining deficiencies an d ad ditions to tax as determined by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Aft er careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude Hackett' s arguments are meritless, and the decision of the tax court was correct. We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Ustaszewski,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 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 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.


/s/ John A. Ustaszewski
-------------------------------------
John A. Ustaszewski
Vice-President and Chief Financial
Officer

August 5, 2005


                                                                              29
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September
30, 2005 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:

| | 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.

|Dated: November 14, 2005 | /s/ Lutz Klingmann                       
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------
|                         | Lutz Klingmann                           
|                         | President and Principal Financial Officer

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02486-WYD-KLM

RICHARD E. GOODWIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUDENT MOVERS, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Richard E. Goodwin’s Motion

to Dismiss [ECF No. 26], filed July 5, 2012. After a careful review of the file, the Court

concludes that this case should be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff Richard E. Goodwin’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 26],

filed July 5, 2012, is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each

party to bear his or its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dated: July 6, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL,

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02486-WYD-KLM Document 27 Filed 07/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Elmo P. LEE v. W. J. GRIFFITH.*

No. 3745.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1931.

Parsons & Colvin, of Mansfield, for appellant.

Lee *&*Williams, of Mansfield, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied December 9, 1931.

DREW, J.

For the reasons assigned in the case bearing the same number, entitled Peter F. Dunn et al. v. W. J. Griffith, 137 So. 766, this day decided by this court, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.'
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# ACTION:

Extension of Public Comment Period for the Proposed White Elk Military Operations Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321,                         *et seq.*), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508), and Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process as implemented by 32 CFR Part 989, the United States Air Force (Air Force) is issuing this notice to advise the public of our intent to provide an extension of the public comment period for the Proposed White Elk Military Operations Area (MOA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).                     

                        The original comment period was scheduled to close on 29 September 2008 (                        **Federal Register**                        : August 15, (Volume 73, Number 159) [Notices] [Page 47948-47949]. The comment period now ends on 13 November 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please submit written comments to Ms. Sheryl Parker, White Elk MOA EIS Project Manager, HQ ACC/A7PP, 129 Andrews St., Ste. 122, Langley AFB, VA 23665-5399. For additional information, please contact Ms. Barbara Fisher at 75 ABW Public Affairs Office, Hill AFB, Utah, at (801) 775-3652. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

 [FR Doc. E8-23859 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with theAnnual Report of Shuffle Master, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/Afor the period ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Yoseloff,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to thebest of my knowledge:

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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.
| Date: April 23, 2007                         |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ MARK L. YOSELOFF                              |   |
| Mark L. Yoseloff                                  |
| Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7663

TEHGRAIN JONES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CITY OF PORTSMOUTH; HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:10-cv-00531-HEH)

Submitted: June 15, 2011 Decided: June 30, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tehgrain Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tehgrain Jones appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for 

failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. City of 

Portsmouth, No. 3:10-cv-00531-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2010). 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
1

This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

2

“[#14]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00408-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LYDIA L. WHITE

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

On November 1, 2011, commencing at 10:00 a.m., the court shall conduct a

hearing on defendant’s Unopposed Motion To Exclude Time and For Ends of

Justice Continuance Under The Speedy Trial Act [#14]2 filed October 26, 2011. 

That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of Colorado

shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for this hearing.

Dated: October 26, 2011

Case 1:11-cr-00408-REB Document 16 Filed 10/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                             NOTICE OF TERMINATION
                                                                   31 March 2000

The Consulting Contract entered into between Dromond Technologies Group, Inc.
and PCsupport.com, Inc. is hereby terminated as of this date.

AGREED:


Per:  PCsupport.com



      /s/ David W. Rowat
      ----------------------------
             David W. Rowat



Per:  Dromond Technologies Group, Inc.


      /s/ Steve Macbeth
      ----------------------------
             Steve Macbeth
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>




                                                   CONSECO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                                                                                                        Exhibit 11.2
                                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE - FULLY DILUTED
                                        for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994





                                                                              1996             1995              1994
                                                                              ----             ----              ----

<S>                                                                      <C>               <C>               <C>    
Weighted average primary shares outstanding..........................    126,811,780       86,093,840        105,392,488
Incremental common equivalent shares:
    Related to options and employee stock plans based
       on market price at end of period..............................      3,626,226          598,916             17,972
    Related to convertible preferred stock...........................     12,048,691       17,787,060         18,026,444
                                                                        ------------      -----------        -----------

Weighted average fully diluted shares outstanding ...................    142,486,697      104,479,816        123,436,904
                                                                        ============      ===========        ===========


Net income for fully diluted earnings per share:

    Net income as reported...........................................   $252,378,000     $220,425,000       $150,398,000

    Less preferred stock dividends...................................              -                -                  -
                                                                        ------------     ------------       ------------

Net income for fully diluted earnings per share......................   $252,378,000     $220,425,000       $150,398,000
                                                                        ============     ============       ============

Net income per fully diluted common share............................          $1.77            $2.11              $1.22
                                                                               =====            =====              =====

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-60077, 33-60073, 33-10796, and 33-6075 of HPSC, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
report dated February 28, 1997 (March 26, 1997 as to Note K), appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of HPSC, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1996.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997
#### Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District at Holbrook, Respondent, v Patrick R. Vecchio, as Supervisor of the Town of Smithtown, et al., Appellants. (Action No. 4.) Board of Education of the Commack Union Free School District et al., Respondents, v Patrick R. Vecchio, as Supervisor of the Town of Smithtown, et al., Appellants. (Action No. 5.) Cora Crimmins, Individually and as a Member of the Board of Education of the Smithtown Central School District, et al., Respondents, v Patrick Vecchio, as Supervisor of the Town of Smithtown, et al., Appellants. (Action No. 9.) Board of Education of the Three Village Central School District, Respondent, v Patrick R. Vecchio, as Supervisor of the Town of Smithtown, et al., Appellants. (Action No. 11.)

In related actions for moneys had and received, the defendants appeal, (1) in action No. 4, from an *902order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated February 20, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, (2) in action No. 5, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, (3) in Action No. 9, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and, (4) in action No. 11, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 4 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff’s cross motion is denied, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 5 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs’ cross motion is denied, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 9 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs’ cross motion is denied, and the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 11 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs’ cross motion is denied, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

Our determination in *Board of Educ. v Rettaliata*(164 AD2d 900 [decided herewith]), is dispositive of the instant appeals. Brown, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.