alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OMAR CYRILLE REAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-97-153-A) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omar Cyrille Reavis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although Reavis characterized the motion as seeking reconsideration of the court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion, thelatter motion raised new, unrelated claims and was properly construed by the district court as a successive § 2255 motion. 2 PER CURIAM: Omar Cyrille Reavis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Reavis , No. CR-97-153-A (E.D. Va. filed July 30, 2001; entered Aug. 1, 2001). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**RONALD CRAWFORD,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 112 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 29th day of October, 2015, the Petition for L eave to File Petition** 

**for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** GRANTED **. Counsel is** DIRECTED **to file the**

**already-prepared Petition for Allowance of Appeal wi thin 5 days.**
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation(HickoryTech) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, John E. Duffy, Chief Executive Officer of HickoryTech, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(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 HickoryTech.

 

 
| /s/ John E. Duffy       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| John E. Duffy           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 4, 2005     |

 

----
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

CASE NO.: 11-cv-02680 RBJ KLM 

JOHN DOE, 

c/o Laszlo & Associates, LLC 

2595 Canyon Blvd. Suite 210 

Boulder, CO 80302 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MERCK & CO., INC. and 

MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. 

 

 Defendants. 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Comes now Plaintiff, by and through his counsel and, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1), 

provides Notice of Dismissal of this action. 

Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court 

order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant has filed an answer or motion for 

summary judgment. FRCP 41(a)(1)(i). In this case, the Defendant has not filed an answer or 

motion for summary judgment. Therefore, by way of this NOTICE, Plaintiff voluntarily 

dismisses this action. 

Case 1:11-cv-02680-RBJ-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of February, 2012. 

/s/ Michael J. Laszlo____________ 

Theodore E Laszlo, Jr. (CO#36234) 

Michael J. Laszlo (CO#38206) 

Jeffrey O. Klein 

Laszlo & Associates, LLC 

2595 Canyon Blvd. Suite 210 

Boulder, CO 80302 

303-926-0410 

303-443-0758 (fax) 

tlaszlo@laszlolaw.com 

mlaszlo@laszlolaw.com 

jklein@laszlolaw.com 

 

Case 1:11-cv-02680-RBJ-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE SURREPLY was served this 28th day of February, 2012, electronically upon all 

counsel of record via the court’s CM/ECF filing system. 

/s/ Theodore E Laszlo, Jr.______

Theodore E Laszlo, Jr. 

Case 1:11-cv-02680-RBJ-KLM Document 31 Filed 02/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1311 

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing in the North Aleutian Basin 

Planning Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2007 

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing in the North 

Aleutian Basin Planning Area, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bristol Bay Protection 

5 Act’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1311 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER2 TAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 

3 SHELF. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

10 provision of this Act or any other law and except as 

11 provided in paragraph (2), beginning on the date of 

12 enactment of this subsection, the conduct of oil and 

13 gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities is pro14 hibited in areas of the outer Continental Shelf lo15 cated in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area. 

16 ‘‘(2) EFFECT.—Nothing in this subsection af17 fects any rights under any lease issued under this 

18 Act before the date of enactment of this sub19 section.’’. 

20 SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF 

21 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND NAT22 URAL GAS RESOURCES. 

23 Section 357(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

24 U.S.C. 15912(a)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘Conti25 nental Shelf’’ the following: ‘‘(other than the North Aleu26 tian Basin Planning Area referred to in section 8(q)(1) 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 1311 IS

1 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 

2 (q)(1)))’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
#### Joseph BERGER, Appellant, v. CORONADO HOTEL COMPANY et al.

No. 11025.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Sept. 27, 1937.

Robert L. Aronson, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Rassieur, Long & Yawitz and Joseph H. 'Grand, all of St. Louis, Mo., and David Levinson, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

. Appeal docketed and dismissed without costs to either party in this court on motion of appellant and certificate of clerk of District Court.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors

CardioDynamics International Corporation

San Diego, California:

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-31275, 333-65331, 333-69669, 333-69663, 333-69659, 333-86475,
333-88311, 333-88307, 333-88309, 333-31702, 333-44226, 333-66396, 333-69456, 333-69458, 333-70916, 333-104236, 333-117486 and 333-134248) and Form S-8 (No. 333-40969, 333-38920, 333-38922, 333-70902, and 333-119044) of CardioDynamics International
Corporation of our report dated February 25, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of CardioDynamics International Corporation as of and for the year ended November 30, 2007, which appears in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP 
|San Diego, California

February 25, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02638-MSK-CBS

MARGARET PURNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERIFIRST FINANCIAL, INC.;

AMERIFIRST MORTGAGE, LLC;

ERIC M. BOWLBY;

MICHAEL J. WANSTEN; and

KATHY KLADNIK-SCHELLHAS,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

Case 1:11-cv-02638-MSK-CBS Document 5 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02638-MSK-CBS Document 5 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 11-cv-2300-AP

MICHAEL A. ZELLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Judge John L. Kane ORDERS

Unopposed Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule (doc. #9), filed January

3, 2012, is GRANTED. Opening brief is due February 13, 2012; response brief is due

March 14, 2012; reply brief is due March 29, 2012.

Dated: January 4, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02300-JLK Document 10 Filed 01/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40066

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR DARIO MEJIA-DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1334-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Dario MejiaDiaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mejia-Diaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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

August 11, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40066 Document: 00512729560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2014
No. 14-40066

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-40066 Document: 00512729560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2014
#### Helen Kohn, Plaintiff, *v.*Emil M. Kohn, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Monroe County,

February 1, 1957.

*Arthur E. Rosenberg*for plaintiff.

*Simon Pogal*for defendant.

*289G. Robert Witmer, J.

Plaintiff has moved to have defendant adjudged in contempt of court for failure to make alimony payments as directed by a judgment of this court entered August 26, 1955. Defendant has cross-moved to vacate said judgment because it was entered in violation of rule 190 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

It appears that in April, 1950 plaintiff instituted a separation action against defendant. The defendant did not answer or appear in the action; but it appears that plaintiff’s attorney communicated with him from time to time concerning the action. On December 6, 1954 plaintiff’s attorney wrote defendant as follows:

“ You will recall that at the time you agreed to continue to pay a reduced amount per month for your wife’s support after the children were grown, I promised not to move the separation action without giving you an opportunity to defend yourself.

“ This is your opportunity: I shall accept your pleading or motion directed to the complaint up to and including December 31, 1954, and not thereafter.”

Thereafter on January 11, 1955 plaintiff’s attorney advised defendant by mail that his time to answer would expire on January 20, 1955.

In August, 1955, without notice to defendant under rule 190 of the Rules of Civil Practice, plaintiff noticed the action for trial on the default matrimonial calendar, presented proof and obtained the judgment which is the basis of these motions.

Plaintiff contends that rule 190 does not apply because defendant was not in default until January 21,1955, less than one year before entry of the judgment.

Such construction and limitation of rule 190 may not be made. Defendant was in default when he failed to answer or appear. The extension of his time to answer by plaintiff was purely voluntary on her part. There is nothing to show that defendant requested it or accepted it. For that matter, the extensions were made by mail, and there is no showing that defendant ever received them. Defendant’s right to a five-day notice of application for judgment after he had failed to answer for more than one year could not be denied him by unilateral agreements for the extension of time to answer. If such construction were adopted, the application of rule 190 could often be nullified by ruse. The right to such notice is a substantial one, and defendant might well have wished to be heard concerning the amount of alimony.

Since it is undisputed that no notice of application for judgment was given, the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judg*290ment. The cross motion to vacate it is therefore granted. (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 190; *Mahnk*v. *Blanchard,*233 App. Div. 555.)

In view of the foregoing ruling, plaintiff’s motion to have defendant adjudged in contempt for failure to obey said judgment is denied.

Submit order accordingly.
#### Alfred WELLS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 8441.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 10, 1937.

Geo. Wesley Smith, of Monroe, La., for appellant.

J. Fair Hardin, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., for appellee.

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 10, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.10 Assets and Liabilities of the Personal Sector1** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* 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 November 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20871 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus JESUS GALINDO-SAUCEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

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

(4:02-CR-379-1)

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Jesus Galindo-Saucedo appeals his 212-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Galindo argues that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing before a different judge because the government breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range at the sentencing hearing.2

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the government was required to recommend that Galindo receive a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guideline range if Galindo complied “fully with all the terms of this plea agreement, specifically including his successful efforts to earn a substantial assistance downward departure as set out herein.” Galindo did not successfully earn a substantial-assistance downward departure as plainly required under the terms of the plea agreement, and he conceded as much at
sentencing. Thus, the government’s failure to make the
recommendation was not error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Reeves , 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.17


                           AMENDMENT TO _____________
                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


         THIS AGREEMENT, between Weatherford International, Inc. ("Weatherford")
and ____________ (the "Non-Employee Director") is as follows:

         WHEREAS, Weatherford previously approved the ____________ Stock Option
Agreement (the "Option Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the Option Agreement, Weatherford granted, on the
8th day of September, 1998, to the Non-Employee Director the right to purchase
60,000 shares of Weatherford common stock at $18.125 per share (the "Option");
and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Weatherford has approved of a
distribution to Weatherford's stockholders of all of the stock of Grant Pideco,
Inc. (the Spin-Off") pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Distribution Agreement by and between Weatherford and Grant Prideco, Inc.; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Weatherford has approved an
adjustment to the exercise price under the Option and the number of shares
subject to the Option to reflect the relative values of Weatherford common stock
and Grant Prideco common stock after giving effect to the Spin-Off;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Option Agreement is amended by adding thereto the
following provisions:

         Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary,
the Option is hereby adjusted as follows. Following the Distribution Date as
defined in the Distribution Agreement by and between Weatherford and Grant
Prideco, Inc., the Non-Employee Director will have the right under the Option to
purchase 93,629 shares of Weatherford common stock for $11.615 per share.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Weatherford has executed this Agreement this
________ day of ________________________, 2000.


                                               WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, INC.


Agreed and Accepted                            By
                                                 ------------------------------
                                               Title
By                                                  ---------------------------
  -------------------------------
   David J. Butters
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60302-60303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24064]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency


Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the countywide per capita impact 
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on 
or after October 1, 2008, will be increased.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2008, and applies to major disasters 
declared on or after October 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Walke, Disaster Assistance

[[Page 60303]]

Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 
9122.1 provides that FEMA will adjust the countywide per capita impact 
indicator under the Public Assistance program to reflect annual changes 
in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the 
Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase in the countywide per capita 
impact indicator to $3.28 for all disasters declared on or after 
October 1, 2008.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers of 5.4 percent for the 12-month period 
ended in August 2008. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. 
Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2008.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public Assistance 
Grants.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24064 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>


         AMENDMENT No. 6, dated as of January 3, 2001, to the Employment
Agreement, made as of the third day of April 1985, and effective as of March 1,
1985 (as amended by amendments, dated as of September 25, 1990, September 30,
1991, September 25, 1992, February 3, 1993, and September 11, 1998, the
"Agreement"), by and between American Technical Ceramics Corp., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company") and Victor Insetta ("Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Employee is employed as President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company pursuant to the Agreement;

         WHEREAS, The Company and the Employee desire to amend the agreement as
hereinafter provided:

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         Section 5 (a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing Section
         5 (a) of the Agreement in its entirety to read as follows:

         (a)  As incentive compensation ("Incentive Compensation"), the Company
              shall pay to the Employee an amount equal to two and one half
              percent (2 1/2%) of the Company's "Pre-tax Profits" (as
              calculated under Section 5 (b) and 5 (c)) for each fiscal year of
              the Company during the term hereof effective with the Company's
              fiscal year ending June 30, 2001.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 6 to be
duly executed and delivered as of January 3, 2001.

                               AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP.



                               -----------------------------------------------
                               Kathleen M. Kelly
                               Vice President, Administration, Corp. Secretary



                               -----------------------------------------------
                               Victor Insetta
Case 1:11-cr-00376-WJM Document 282 Filed 01/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Lewis NELSON et al. v. Josephine N. BREITENBUCHER.

No. 1601.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 1938.

Paul C. Sprinkle, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.

Edwin S. McAnany, of Kansas City, Kan., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of appellee, at appellants’ costs, on the grounds that the order appealed from is not an ap*1011pealable order. Wayne G. Hunt v. United States, 10 Cir., 53 F.2d 333.