alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d
S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-15-2012 

# S ecr et a r y U S ;D ep a r tme n t of L a b v . Alt or I nc

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 11-4077

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S e cr e t a r y U S ;D e p a r tme n t of L a b v . Alt or I nc " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 162. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/162

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT September 13, 2012 No. 1 1

- 407 7

Secretary United States Department of Labor

v. Nicholas Saites, et al.

( OSHRC No. 99

- 0958 )

Present: FUENTES, HARDIMAN and ROTH

, Circuit Judges

1. Motion by Petitioner Se cretary Department of labor to clarify opinion dated 8/31/12

2. Response by Altor Inc., Avcon Inc, Nicholas Saites and Vasilios Saites

3. Reply by Petitioner. Respectfully, Clerk/ tyw

______________________ ___________ORDER_____________________

___________ The foregoing motion for clarification is granted. As the opinion and judgment issued on August 31, 2012 addressed the issues raised in the petition for review and not the issues raised in the application for summary enforcement the inclusion o f docket number 11

- 4077 on the opinion was in error. An amended opinion and judgment will be issued listing only docket number 11

- 2718. As the removal of docket number 11

- 4077 does not alter the substance of the opinion or judgment, the filing date of th e opinion and judgment will remain unchanged. The response by Altro Inc., Avcon Inc, Nicholas Saites and Vasilios Saites in opposition to the mo tion for clarification shall be deemed their response to the application for summary enforcement. The applicati on for summary enforcement is hereby granted. A decree enforcing a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission shall be entered. By the Court,

Circuit Judge /s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Dated: November 15, 2012 tyw/cc: Heather R. Phillips, Esq. John R. Shortall, Esq. Kevin J. O’Connor, Esq.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 4288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. PAUL RICHARD CHATMAN, a/k/a Paul Richard Chapman , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00170

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : November 1 6 , 2017 Decided: November 22, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and d ismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Andrew L

. Farris , Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Gr eensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Paul Richard Chatman appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to seven mon ths’ imprisonment with no additional term of supervised release. Chatman’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Chatman’s revocati on sentence is reasonable. Chatman was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. During the pendency of this appeal, Chatman was released from incarceration. We may address sua sponte whether an issue on appeal p resents “a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the
courts.” Castendet

- Lewis v. Sessions , 855 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 2017). Because Chatman has already served his term of imprisonment and the district court did not impose any additional term of supervised release, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the revocation sentence. Therefore, counsel’s challenge to the d istrict court’s decision to impose the seven

- month prison term is moot. See United States v. Hardy , 545 F.3d 280, 283

- 84 (4th Cir. 2008). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the appeal of Chatman’s sentence and affirm the remainder of the revocation judgment . We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this stage in the proceedings. This c ourt requires that counsel inform Chatman , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Chatman requests that a petition be filed, but counsel3 believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion

. Counsel’s motion must state t hat a copy thereof was served on Chatman

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4001 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4001

   To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to use the Agricultural 
Research Service to conduct research regarding the likelihood and risks 
of the transfer between animal species of the proteinaceous infectious 
    particles, known as prions, that cause transmissible spongiform 
               encephalopathies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2004

    Mr. Latham (for himself, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
  McDermott, and Mr. Leach) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to use the Agricultural 
Research Service to conduct research regarding the likelihood and risks 
of the transfer between animal species of the proteinaceous infectious 
    particles, known as prions, that cause transmissible spongiform 
               encephalopathies, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE RESEARCH ON INTERSPECIES 
              TRANSFER OF PROTEINACEOUS INFECTIOUS PARTICLES CAUSING 
              TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES.

    (a) Research Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
establish a research program under which the Agricultural Research 
Service will conduct research regarding the likelihood and risks of the 
transfer between animal species of the proteinaceous infectious 
particles, known as prions, that cause transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathies. In carrying out the research program, the 
Agricultural Research Service shall specifically study the risks 
associated with feeding livestock by-products to other animals, such as 
chickens, turkeys, and hogs, which are subsequently slaughtered and the 
by-products of which are feed to livestock or whose offspring are 
slaughtered and the by-products of which are feed to livestock.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the research 
program $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 
2006, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
                                 <all>
```
#### Burrell Million *v.*John Newby.

Principal and Surety — Contribution—Insolvency of Principal.

The evidence was held to ¡show that the principal waisi not insolvent, and that a surety was not entitled to look to his co-surety for contribution.

'APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1872.

*Bwrnam, for appellant.*

*Scott, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

By the payment of the note to Collins, appellant became primarily the creditor of the principal, Robert Million, and his right to look to his co-surety, Newby, for contribution depends upon whether or not the principal in the note was at the time of such payment insolvent.

The evidence shows that at that time Robert Million owned in his own right, unencumbered by liens, a tract of land, which he sold two years afterwards for the sum of nine hundred dollars, nearly one-half of which was applied to the payment of a debt upon which appellant was his surety. It further appears that in 1865 and 1866 Robert Million, owned a grocery store, also, that in 1866 he delivered to appellant $400 in notes.

These facts, considered1 in connection with other circumstances proved, in our opinion rebut any presumption of insolvency upon the part of Robert Million growing out of the general statements of his witnesses that they did not regard him as solvent. By the use of ordinary diligence appellant could have secured indemnity from his son for whom he paid the money to Collins; hence he was properly refused a judgment against his co-surety, Newby, for ■ any amount. This conclusion renders the consideration of the other questions presented unnecessary.

Judgment *affirmed.*
Case: 1:20-cv-05051 Document #: 56 Filed: 09/09/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:529
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 United States of America )

Plaintiff ) Case No: 20 CR 585

 )

 v. )

) Judge: Maria Valdez

)

 Jacob Mathley )

 Defendant )

ORDER

Status hearing held on 10/1/20 as to defendant Jacob Mathley. All parties agreed to appear 

telephonically. Attorney Donna Foley was present on behalf of the defendant. The Court 

admonished the defendant and the third-party custodian, Lynn McHarry as to the conditions of 

release. The defendant is released on a personal recognizance bond. Enter Order Setting 

Conditions of Release. The Government’s oral motion to file a supplement to the Order Setting 

Conditions of Release under seal is granted. The defendant is to be released after processing. 

(T:00:30)

__________________________

Date: October 1, 2020 Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 22 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:57
# Determination With Respect to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to section 404 of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA) (title IV, Public Law 110-457), as amended, I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States: to waive the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Rwanda, Somalia, and Yemen; to waive in part the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to the Central African Republic to allow for provision of International Military Education and Training (IMET); to waive in part the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to allow for provision of IMET, nonlethal Excess Defense Articles, the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of U.S. origin nonlethal defense articles, Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) assistance, and support provided pursuant to section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 to the extent such support would be restricted by the CSPA; and to waive in part the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to South Sudan to allow for the provision of PKO assistance and support provided pursuant to section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 to the extent such support would be restricted by the CSPA. I hereby waive such provisions accordingly.

                    You are authorized and directed to submit this determination to the Congress, along with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification, and to publish the determination in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2014-27870

Billing code 4710-10
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL15-15-000]

                    On November 20, 2014, the Commission issued an Order to Show Cause in Docket No. EL15-15-000, initiating a proceeding pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), directing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. to either revise its Open Access Transmission Tariff to provide that a generation or non-generation resource owner will no longer receive reactive power capability payments after it has deactivated its unit and to clarify the treatment of reactive power capability payments for units transferred out of a fleet; or show cause why it should not be required to do so.                     *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,*                     149 FERC ¶ 61,132 (2014).                

                    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-15-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register.**

Dated: November 20, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-28024 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
exv4w1



 







EXHIBIT 4.1


















 





     THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE

TO EACH
STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS A COPY OF THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE,
PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF OF THE
CORPORATION, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR
RIGHTS.



     The following abbreviations, when used in the

inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TEN COM

	 	- as tenants in common
	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-
	 	 	 	Custodian	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	TEN ENT

	 	- as tenants by the entireties
	 	 	 	(Cust)

	 	 	(Minor)

	JT TEN
	 	- as joint tenants with right of	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	

	 	  survivorship and not as tenants
	 	 	 	Act for	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	  in common	 	 	 	 	 	(State)







Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.




For Value

Received,__________________________________________________hereby sell, assign and transfer unto




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER	 	 	 	 
	IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING

ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Shares
	 	 	 
	of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably

constitute
and appoint	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Attorney
	 	 	 
	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Company with full power of

substitution
in the premises.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 








	 	 	 
	
_____________________________________________________________________________________

	NOTICE:

	 	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS

WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.




 


	 	 	 
	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:
	 	 
	

	 	 
	

	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR

INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS

AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION

PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.





KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST,

STOLEN, MUTILATED OR

DESTROYED, THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE

ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.
38      The May Department Stores Company
**Exhibit 21**
**The May Department Stores Company and Subsidiaries**
**Subsidiaries of May**
The corporations listed below are subsidiaries of May, and all are included in theconsolidated financial statements of May as subsidiaries (unnamed subsidiaries, considered in theaggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary):   Name Jurisdiction in which organized The May Department Stores Company New York May Merchandising Company Delaware May Department Stores International, Inc. Delaware May Capital, Inc. Delaware Grande Levee, Inc.   Nevada Leadville Insurance Company  Vermont Snowdin Insurance Company  Vermont David’s Bridal, Inc.    Florida After Hours Formalwear, Inc.   Georgia Priscilla of Boston, Inc. Delaware
Exhibit 10.1


 


FORM OF
SECOND QUARTER 2005 BONUS


 


Letter of
Agreement


 


Date:          


 


I,                                                
(“Employee”) understand that GTSI will pay to me a retention bonus comparable
to 100% of the EBT bonus (called “100% EBT”) for the second quarter, 2005 (to
be paid to me on August 08, 2005) as long as I am employed by GTSI at the
time of payment.


 


By this Letter of Agreement, and without
any pressure to sign this Letter of Agreement by GTSI, I agree to repay the
bonus should I:


 


(a)          leave the company upon
my own volition within twelve (12) months of the date that the 100% EBT payment
is paid to me


(b)         be released from the company for cause within twelve (12) months of the
date that the retention bonus is paid to me. 
(As used in this Agreement, termination with cause has the same meaning
as defined in the employee’s ‘GTSI’s Change of Control Agreement’.


 


I
agree that any money owed to GTSI, to include the difference between my
retention bonus, may be deducted from my final paycheck, or withheld from any
other amount due to me from GTSI.  If I
do not have enough money to cover this amount, I agree to submit a check to
GTSI to cover the full amount within 10 business days of my last date of
employment.


 


As agreed and acknowledged:


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Employee

  	
  Date

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  GTSI Corporate Witness

  	
   

  	
  ,

  	
  Date:
10252.

#### Green *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

1.' “On the trial of one charged with a violation of the act of 1910 (Acts 1910, p. 134 [Park’s Ann. Penal Code, § 348a]), the State makes out a prima facie case when it proves that the accused carried a pistol on his person, or had manual possession of a pistol, not at his home or place of business, and the burden is upon the accused to show, in answer to this evidence, that he had a license as prescribed by *520the act.” *Blocker*v. *State,*12 Ga. *App.*81 (3) (76 S. E.784). See also *Russell*v. *State,*12 Ga. App. 557 (77 S. E. 829) ; *Harden*v. *State,*17 Ga. App. 322 (86 S. E. 736); *Elkins*v. State, 17 Ga. App. 479 (87 S. E. 713).

Decided March 7, 1919.

Accusation of carrying pistol; from city court of Millen—Judge Dekle. October 28, 1918.

*James A. Dixon,*for plaintiff in error.v

*William Woodrum, solicitor,*contra.

2. The motion for a new trial contained only the general grounds, there was evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the presiding judge, and the judgment must be

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 23.2



The Directors

Inmarsat Group Limited

99 City Road,

London EC1Y 1AX



27 April 2007



|SUBJECT: | WRITTEN CONSENT TO REFERENCE DUFF & PHELPS, LTD IN SEC FORM 20F FILING OF INMARSAT GROUP LIMITED
|-------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Form 20-F of Inmarsat Group Limited relating to the
acquisition of ACeS, of references to our final report regarding the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets of ACeS, provided to you on 19 December 2006, and to references to our firms name therein. In giving such consent, we do
not hereby admit that we come within the category of person whose consent is required under Section 7 or Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
thereunder, nor do we admit that we are experts with respect to any part of such Form 20-F within the meaning of the term "experts" as used in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission thereunder. The responsibility for determining the value of the tangible and intangible assets rests solely with Inmarsat and our valuation report was used as part of Inmarsats analysis in reaching their conclusion of value.



Sincerely



/s/ MATHIAS SCHUMACHER

---

Mathias Schumacher

Duff & Phelps Ltd