alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 28, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PRINCESS J. ANTHONY,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-3364

v. D. Kansas

ALORICA, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee .

(D.C. Nos. 2:08-CV-02437-CM-KGS

 and 2:08-CV-02438-JAR-KGS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff and appellant, Princess Anthony, a black female, filed two

underlying Title VII lawsuits after defendant and appellee Alorica, Inc.

terminated her employment. The two cases were consolidated. Following

Appellate Case: 09-3364 Document: 01018431132 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

repeated attempts to complete discovery, Alorica filed a motion to dismiss the

cases. The magistrate judge to whom the matter was referred recommended that

the motion to dismiss be granted as a sanction against Ms. Anthony. The

magistrate judge described Ms. Anthony’s repeated failure to respond to court

orders and directives, as well as her failure to respond to disclosure requirements,

even after she was given extra time to do so.

Subsequently, on December 4, 2009, the district court adopted the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, and dismissed the

consolidated actions. This appeal followed. Except for a brief period of time,

Ms. Anthony has proceeded pro se.

We have carefully read the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,

the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation, and numerous

other orders entered throughout the case, as well as the complete record. We can

add nothing to the analysis contained therein. While we are sympathetic to

Ms. Anthony’s plight, with a seriously ill child, and the problems she purports to

have with the United States mail service, neither those situations nor her pro se

status excuse her from complying with the most basic and fundamental procedural

rules of our courts. 

Appellate Case: 09-3364 Document: 01018431132 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the dismissal of the consolidated Title VII

actions, for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated

December 4, 2009. Any other pending motions are DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-3364 Document: 01018431132 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Page: 3
Exhibit 32.1 

 

**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)         the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as        amended; and

 

(ii)         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: June 10, 2009

 

| /s/ Clyde B. Anderson                |
|--------------------------------------|
| Clyde B. Anderson                    |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
# KSC-2011-1730

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- As if soaring through the heavens, space shuttle Discovery launches through rolling clouds of smoke and steam, embarking on its final scheduled mission, STS-133, to the International Space Station. Liftoff from launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida occurred at 4:53 p.m. EST on Feb. 24.          Discovery and its six-member crew are on a mission to deliver the Permanent Multipurpose Module, packed with supplies and critical spare parts, as well as Robonaut 2, the dexterous humanoid astronaut helper, to the International Space Station. Discovery is making its 39th mission and is scheduled to be retired following STS-133. This is the 133rd Space Shuttle Program mission, the 35th shuttle voyage to the space station and Discovery's final mission. For more information on the STS-133 mission, visit www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts133/. Photo credit: NASA/Kenny Allen

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ksc-2011-1730/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenFebruary 24, 2011ProducerKSCSize1280x1920pxPIA NumberKSC-2011-1730The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 20, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

                                                                    Exhibit 27.1
                                 Worldtex, Inc.

THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM WORLDTEX,
INC.  FORM 10-Q FOR THE  PERIOD  ENDED  JUNE 30,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                          11,625
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   51,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    1,708
<INVENTORY>                                                     55,380
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                119,139
<PP&E>                                                          145,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  40,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  317,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           35,718
<BONDS>                                                         186,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                        147
<OTHER-SE>                                                      78,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  317,992
<SALES>                                                         135,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                135,283
<CGS>                                                           108,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   108,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              9,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 4,702
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    1,803
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             2,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    2,899
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   .20

        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                           Certifications Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

      In connection with the Annual Report of BPK Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"),
I, Christopher H. Giordano, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to my 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.


                                           /s/ Christopher H. Giordano
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Christopher H. Giordano
                                           Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer


Date:  September 14, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Fernando ORDINOLA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-35867.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 6, 2003.

Decided Aug. 27, 2003.

Matthew H. Thomas, Esq., USTA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, Hugh W. Berry, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paula T. Olson, Esq., Smith, Ailing, Lane, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BROWNING, ALARCON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Fernando Ordinola has petitioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to communicate properly and accept a plea offer. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance issue, the district court denied Ordinola’s petition. We affirm.

We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo. *Mancuso v. Olivarez,*292 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir.2002). Ordinola must show that counsel’s actions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance and that he was prejudiced as a result of counsel’s actions. *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687-690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). *Strickland*applies to claims of ineffective assistance during the plea process. *Hill v. Lockhart,*474 U.S. 52, 57-58, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

Because conflicting evidence was presented below, resolution of Ordinola’s *760claim depends upon a credibility determination. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. *Anderson v. Calderon,*232 F.3d 1053, 1084 (9th Cir. 2000).

The district court found that (1) counsel fully advised Ordinola of the consequences of rejecting the plea and going to trial; (2) while there were only plea discussions and never a firm plea offer from the government, Ordinola did not want to accept what he understood to be a plea offer of 36 months; and (3) counsel recalled Ordinola unequivocally stating he wanted to go to trial. There is nothing in the record or in the briefs showing these factual findings to be clearly erroneous.

Based on this factual foundation, Ordinola cannot meet the first prong of the *Strickland*test.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7089

CHARLES WALKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RALPH S. BEARDSLEY; OFFICER BRANHAM; J.

MCFADDEN, Correctional Officer; M. TAYLOR,

Correctional Officer; R. MCDOWELL,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JANE DOE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-97-2896-24-AK)

Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX,

BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Walker seeks to appeal from the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary

judgment for Defendants in Walker’s 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because Walker’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March

31, 1999. Walker’s notice of appeal was filed on July 31, 2000.

Because Walker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss

the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Third Review)]

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, the antidumping duty order on heavy iron construction castings from Canada, and the antidumping duty orders on iron construction castings (both heavy and light) from Brazil and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to industries in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted these reviews on May 3, 2010 (75 FR 23295) and determined on August 6, 2010 to conduct expedited reviews of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders (75 FR 49945).

                    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on October 27, 2010. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4191 (October 2010), entitled                     *Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Third Review).*

Issued: October 27, 2010.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2010-27612 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29


                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO TRANSITION AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to Transition Services Agreement is made as of this 21st
day of December, 1999 by and between Smith & Nephew, Inc. ("S&N") and DonJoy,
L.L.C. ("DonJoy, L.L.C.")

                             PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS

A.  S&N and DonJoy, L.L.C. entered into a certain Transition Services Agreement
    dated as of June 30, 1999 ("Transition Services Agreement").

B.  S&N and DonJoy, L.L.C. mutually desire to amend the Transition Services
    Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Item 9 of Exhibit A to the Transition Services Agreement is hereby deleted in
its entirely and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof:

    "S&N will act as the sole authorized European representative for CE
    regulation through December 31, 1999. The parties acknowledge that DonJoy,
    L.L.C. has retained the services of Quality First International Limited
    ("QFI") to serve as its authorized European representative commencing
    January 1, 2000. The parties further acknowledge that certain products sold
    by DonJoy, L.L.C. and its predecessor prior to December 31, 1999 and DonJoy,
    L.L.C. products in inventory as of December 31, 1999 designate S&N as the
    authorized European representative (collectively "Covered Products"). The
    parties also acknowledge that incidents relating to the Covered Products may
    be reported to S&N since S&N was the designated authorized European
    representative. S&N agrees to refer all inquiries, comments and complaints
    received by S&N as the designated European representative for the Covered
    Products to QFI at 20 Eversley Road, Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex, TN40 1HE,
    United Kingdom. S&N shall have the right to terminate the obligations set
    forth in this Item 9 by providing thirty (30) days prior written notice to
    DonJoy, L.L.C.; provided, however, such notice shall not be given any
    earlier than November 30, 2000. DonJoy, L.L.C. shall have the right to
    terminate the rights and obligations under this Item 9 any time by prior
    written notice to S&N. S&N shall have no obligations after December 31, 1999
    with respect to authorized European representative matters other than to
    make the referrals to QFI as described above and provide documents, notices,
    information or materials received by S&N relating to Covered Products to QFI
    in an expeditious manner. Without limiting the foregoing, S&N shall not be
    obligated to make any adverse incident notification submissions. DonJoy,
    L.L.C. agrees not to identify S&N as the authorized European representative
    in conjunction with any product that are manufactured by or on behalf of
    DonJoy, L.L.C. after December 31, 1999."


    SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.                DONJOY, L.L.C.

    By: _____________________           By: _____________________

    Title: __________________           Title: __________________
# Sitemap

## October 07, 2022

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2022
- 10
- October 07, 2022

            - NASA to Provide Update on DART, World’s First Planetary Defense Test
            - Marshall Holds 34th Small Business Alliance Meeting, Presents Industry Awards
            - Space Station Science Highlights: Week of October 3, 2022
            - Baja California Sur and the Gulf of California
            - The waxing gibbous Moon above the Earth’s horizon
            - The waxing crescent Moon above the Atlantic Ocean
            - SpaceX Crew-5 Pilot Josh Cassada
            - The aurora australis intersects Earth’s atmospheric glow
            - ‘Our Work Lies Beyond the Sky’: Facilities Planners Look to Marshall’s Future
            - NASA’s InSight Waits Out Dust Storm
Lunar Sample Curation Laboratory

#
# The Attorney General of Texas
August 17, 1981 MARK WHITE Attorney General

Mr. RubenM. Torres, Chairman OpinionNo. w-361 Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles StephenF. Austin Building,Room 711 Re: Interpretationof article Austin, Texas 78711 42.12, 915(d) Code of Criminal Procedure Dear Mr. Torres: You have requested our opinion regarding the proper construction of section 15(d) of article 42.12, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. That sectionprovides:

A prisoner who has not been released to mandatory supervisionand has 180 calendardays or less remaining on his sentencemay be releasedby order of the Board tomandatory supervision. Section 15(c)provides, inpertinentpart:

A prisoner who is not on parole, except a person under sentence of death, shall be released -- to mandatory supervision by order of the Board when the calendar time he has served plus any accrued good conduct time equal the maximum term towhich he was sentenced. A prisoner released to mandatory supervision shall, upon release, be deemed as if released on parole. (Emphasis added.) You explain that the Board of Pardons and Paroles has heretofore construed theword "sentence" in section 15(d) to refer to themaximum term to which a prisoner was sentenced by the trial court, without taking into account any good conduct time under section 15(c). YOU ask whether the Board may interpret the word "sentence" to refer to the releasedate imposedby section 15(c), i.e., themaximum term less good conduct time. Creditinggood conduct time is not discretionary,but is required by the clear language of section 15(c). Thus, for purposes of determining a prisoner's release date, a llsentencell in section 15(c) seems to refer to the prisoner'smaximum term less good conduct time. We believe that the Board's proposed construction is in fact themost

p. 1208RubenM. Torres - Page 2 MW-361

reasonable interpretation of the word "sentence" in section 15(d). The word "sentence" in section 15(d) of article 42.12 should be construed to refer to the release date imposed by section 15(c) thereof, i.e., themaximum term less accrued good conduct time.
SUMMARY The Board of Pardons and Paroles should construe the word "sentence" in section 15(d) of article 42.12, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, to refer to the release date imposed by section 15(c) of that statute, i.e., a prisoner's maximum term less any accrued good conduct time.

MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas JOHNW. FAINTER,JR. FirstAssistantAttorney General RICHARD E. GRAY III ExecutiveAssistantAttorneyGeneral Preparedby Rick Gilpin AssistantAttorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE SusanL. Garrison,Chairman Jqn Bible Rick Gilpin Jim Moellinger

p. 1209