alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20171

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NAYEL ELOURI,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-248-1

 

February 26, 2003

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nayel Elouri appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to

conspiring to traffic in counterfeit motion pictures and other

audiovisual works in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, 2318. Elouri

argues that the district court erred in finding that he occupied an

aggravating role in the offense warranting a three-level increase
2

in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The district

court did not clearly err in determining that Elouri qualified for

an aggravating-role-in-the-offense adjustment. United States v.

Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

980, 1086 (2002). Nor did the court clearly err in refusing to

grant a reduction in Elouri’s offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. §

3B1.2. See Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 503 (5th Cir.

2000).

Elouri argues that the district court erred in awarding

$136,050 in restitution to the Motion Picture Association of

America (MPA) pursuant to the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18

U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A (the VWPA). Elouri argues that the MPA is

not a “victim” of his offense for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3663A

because the MPA is an industry trade association. This argument

was not adequately raised below. Elouri has not demonstrated plain

error with respect to this argument. See United States v. Greer,

137 F.3d 247, 252 (5th Cir. 1998); 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2).

Elouri argues that judicial estoppel should bar the Government

from maintaining the position that the MPA is a victim for

restitution purposes. Because Elouri has not demonstrated that the

Government’s position is clearly inconsistent with its position in

another case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel. See IN re

Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205-06 (5th Cir. 1999); Ergo
3

Science, Inc. v. Martin, 73 F.3d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 1996).

Elouri argues that the district court erred in ordering as a

special condition of supervised release that he provide financial

information to the probation officer. Because the court imposed an

order of restitution, the special condition was proper and

consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §

5D1.3(d)(3), p.s.; see United States v. Ismoila, 100 F.3d 380, 394

(5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
10367.

#### Amason v.The State.

Decided June 9, 1919.

Indictment for larceny; from Eulton superior court—Judge Hill. December 21, 1918.

*Ernest G. Bentley,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

The conviction of the accused depended wholly upon circumstantial evidence. The court therefore erred in failing, even in the absence of a timely written request, to charge the law of circumstantial • evidence. While “it is immaterial what language is employed to convey this instruction” *(Mangum*v. *State,*5 *Ga. App.*445, 63 8. E. 543; *Bush*v. *State,: 23 Ga. App.*126, 97 S. E. 554), there was no language in the charge in the instant case which sufficiently presented it. Because of this error a new trial is required.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens,.JJ., concur.*
#### TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC. *v.*INDEPENDENT FEDERATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

No. 86-1650.

Argued January 12, 1988

Decided March 2, 1988

*Murray Gartner*argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were *Paul E. Donnelly, Mark A. Buck-stein,*and *Michael A. Katz.*

*Steven A. Fehr*argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were *William A. Jolley, Doyle R. Pryor,*and *Scott A. Raisher.*
      ***

Briefs of *amici curiae*urging reversal were filed for the Crossover Flight Attendants by *Mark P. Johnson;*and for Some Working TWA Flight Attendants by *Robert F. Gore, Rossie D. Alston, Jr.,*and *Rex H. Reed.*

*Marsha Berzon, William Mahoney, John Clarke, Jr.,*and *Laurence Gold*filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al. as *amici curiae*urging affirmance.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4121 

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to help ensure a healthy food 

supply, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2004 

Mr. REHBERG (for himself and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to help ensure 

a healthy food supply, 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 ‘‘Consumer and Pro5 ducer Protection Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CON7 SUMPTION OF CERTAIN CATTLE. 

8 (a) NON-AMBULATORY DEFINED.—Section 1 of the 

9 Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601) is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following new subsection: 
2 

•HR 4121 IH 

1 ‘‘(w) The term ‘non-ambulatory’ shall apply to any 

2 cattle that, at the time of examination and inspection 

3 under section 3(a), is unable to rise from a recumbent po4 sition or unable to walk for any reason, including meta5 bolic conditions or central nervous system disorders, un6 less the reason for such inability is fatigue, stress, 

7 obdurator nerve paralysis, obesity, or one or more broken 

8 or fractured appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, or 

9 dislocated joints.’’. 

10 (b) PROHIBITION ON ALLOWING CERTAIN CATTLE

11 TO PASS INSPECTION.—Section 3(a) of the Federal Meat 

12 Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(a)) is amended by adding 

13 at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘All cattle found 

14 on such inspection to be non-ambulatory, to test positive 

15 for central nervous system disorders, to exhibit signs of 

16 bovine spongiform encephalopathy (including moribund 

17 condition, tetanus, or emaciation), or to be dead prior to 

18 examination and inspection shall be found to be adulter19 ated for purposes of section 4.’’. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Wayne Farms LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−05191

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, October 1, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motion hearing held and

continued to 10/15/2020 at 9:15 a.m. Plaintiff's motion to extend temporary restraining

order [16] is granted. The TRO [14] is extended to 10/15/2020 at 9:30 a.m.

Attorneys/Parties should appear for the 10/15/2020 hearing by calling the Toll−Free

Number: (877) 336−1828, Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and media will

be able to call in to listen to this hearing (use toll free number). Please, please be sure to

keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote access to

proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and

rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in

sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future

hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by

the Court. Plaintiff shall electronically and expeditiously serve a copy of this order on

Defendants. Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:167
10062.

#### Lowe *v.*The State.

Decided November 16, 1918.

Indictment for burglary; from Hall superior court—Judge J. B. Jones. August 10, 1918.

*Boyd Sloan, Claud B. Barrett,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert McMillan, solicitor-general,*contra.

Harwell, J.

Only the usual general grounds assign error in the motion for a new trial. There was some evidence to support the verdict, and, it having been approved by the trial judge, this'court can not interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus THOMAS MATEO, a/k/a Perfecto Mateo-Serrano, a/k/a Tony Montana, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-01-272) Submitted: July 15, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory John Ramage, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tomas Mateo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to 292 months on Count One, to be followed by sixty months on Count Two. Mateo’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one claim but stating that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for review. Mateo was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed such a brief. We affirm. In the Andersbrief, Mateo argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a more favorable plea agreement and a more lenient sentence. We note that Mateo pleaded guilty to two counts of a six-count indictment and the Government dropped the remaining four counts in exchange for the guilty plea. After thoroughly reviewing the materials before us, we conclude that ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the face of the record. Mateo should raise his ineffectiveness claim, if at all, in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United States v. Richardson , 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). We accordingly affirm. We have, as required by Anders , reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for3 appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mateo r equests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that copy of the motion was served on Mateo. We dispe nse with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 10.41
                                                                   -------------

                          ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT SUMMARY

From:    Dawn Moskowitz,
Date:    December 18, 2000
To:      Sharon Wilkinson

Subject: Permission Request

Sharon:

We have reviewed and approved the mock-up. We look forward to seeing
timeforkids.com as the news provider in your browser.

Dawn Moskowitz
Assistant New Media Director
Time For Kids, Division of Time, Inc.
1271 6th Avenue
New York, NY 10020


 ---------------------- Reply Separator ----------------------

From:     Dawn Moskowitz
Date:     November 27, 2000
To:       Sharon Wilkinson

Subject:  Permission Request

Sharon:

You have our approval to feature timeforkids.com as the news provider for the
Heartsoft web browser. The timeforkids.com logo must link directly to the
timeforkids.com homepage. Per our phone conversation, we must have approval over
a final mock-up with our logo prior to public utilization of it.

Please e-mail a screen print or url for proofing to both Dawn Moskowitz and Nan
Zabala.

Dawn Moskowitz
Assistant New Media Director
Time For Kids, Division of Time, Inc.
1271 6th Avenue
New York, NY 10020

---------------------- Reply Separator ----------------------

<PAGE>

From:      Sharon Wilkinson
Date:      November 22, 2000
To:        Dawn Moskowitz, Time For Kids

Subject:  Permission Request

Dawn:

I am attaching a screen print of the main page of Internet Safari as you
requested. Your logo will be displayed on this page across the bottom.

If you have any other questions or need anymore information just let me know.

Sharon Wilkinson
Reseller Account Manager
Heartsoft, Inc.
3101 N. Hemlock Circle
Broken Arrow, OK 74012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0588

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 15, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2021

11/09/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0588
Prepared and filed by St Ives Financial





Exhibit 10.1

INTEGRATED ALARM SERVICES GROUP, INC.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     AMENDMENT NO. 1, made as of this 18th day
of November, 2005 (the “Amendment”), TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, made as of January 31, 2003 (the “Agreement”) by and between INTEGRATED ALARM SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Employer”), and Timothy M. McGinn (“Employee”). 

W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the Agreement will expire on January 30, 2006; and

     WHEREAS, Employer desires to employ Employee on an uninterrupted basis as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Employer pending the negotiation and execution of a new Agreement; and 

     WHEREAS, Employee is willing to be employed as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Employer in the manner provided for, and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and herein;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein set forth it is agreed as follows:

		
1.	
Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following subsection:


	 	 	 	 
	 	 	“b.	
 Subject to Section 9 and 10 of the Agreement, in the event that one party timely notifies
the other of its intention not to extend the Term, and if the parties do not enter into a new agreement prior to the
expiration of the Term, this Agreement shall automatically extend for an additional three (3) month period
 (the “Three Month Extension”). During the Three Month Extension, Employee will
 continue to receive his present base compensation and other perquisites, as outlined in Section 4;
 provided however, that he shall not be entitled to his guaranteed bonus of $100,000, as described
in Section 4.a.(i).  In addition, all of the
“Change of Control” provisions outlined in Section 4.e., including Employee’s right
to receive his guaranteed bonus in the event of a Change in Control, as defined in the Agreement,
will continue to apply.”


 






 

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 

INTEGRATED ALARM SERVICES GROUP, INC.
    
   By:   /s/
        Thomas J. Few, Sr.

              Thomas
    J. Few, Sr.

          President

  TIMOTHY M. MCGINN

   /s/
        Timothy M. McGinn

           Timothy
  M. McGinn
EXHIBIT 32(a)**CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) ofLindsay Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended February 28, 2007, I, RichardW. Parod, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, David B. Downing, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.       /s/ Richard W. Parod     President and Chief Executive Officer    Richard W. Parod         /s/ David B. Downing     Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    David B. Downing         April 9, 2007       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
-26-
Fundamentals of Metrology Topical Content

Fundamentals of Metrology TOC 20221230.doc

1. Introduction & Overview –

a. Safety and Orientation

b. Course Overview and Introductions

2. Good Laboratory Practices (Integrity and Data Management)

a. ALCOA+

b. Software Verification and Validation (GLP 15)

3. Measurement Systems

a. Who’s Who in the World of Metrology and Pathways in Traceability

4. Traceability (6.5) – GMP 11, GMP 13

a. Definitions and Essential Elements – and Risk

b. Application from Laboratory Measurements

c. Tools for assessing the laboratory and Laboratory Measurements

5. Measurement Exercise (results to be integrated into remaining topics)

a. Laboratory “Scope” Addition

b. Research: Reviewing Specifications and Customer Requirements

c. Inspection of Laboratory Resources: Facility (6.3), Equipment (6.4), Standards (6.5)

d. Calibration Items – care, inspection, handling, tracking (7.4), contract review (7.1), sampling (7.3)

e. Method Validation, GLP 14 (7.2)

f. Laboratory Measurements – Results on Calibration Certificates

6. Statistics – Foundations for Data Analysis, Measurement Assurance, Method Validation, and Uncertainty Analysis

a. Terminology and Concepts

b. Measures of Central Tendency and Variation

c. Comparative Statistical Tools

d. Application from Laboratory Measurements – Team Scenario and Calculation of F and t tests

7. Ensuring Validity (Measurement Assurance) (7.7) – GLP 1

a. What it is and where it “fits” in the laboratory system

b. SOP 30: Check Standards and Control Charts (DMAIC)

c. Application from Laboratory Measurements – Measurements on Control Charts

d. Tools for assessing the laboratory

8. Uncertainties (7.6) – SOP 29, GLP 9

a. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)

b. SOP 29: 8-step Process

c. Rounding Results and Uncertainties

d. Application from Laboratory Measurements – Uncertainty Values on Calibration Certificates

9. Competency and Proficiency Testing (6.2, 7.7)

a. Uses of Interlaboratory Comparisons

b. Statistical Tools

c. Application from Laboratory Measurements – Passing Normalized Error and Normalized Precision

10. Calibration Programs

a. Tools for Risk Identification and Evaluation

11. Calibration Certificates (7.8)

a. Tools for assessing the laboratory

b. Application from Laboratory Measurements – Complete, Accurate Calibration Certificate

12. Final Exam

Section numbers are references to ISO/IEC 17025:2017. NOTE: GMP, GLP, SOP references are from NISTIR 6969, Selected 

Laboratory and Measurement Practices, and Procedures to Support Basic Mass Calibrations (latest valid edition) or 

NISTIR 8250, Calibration Procedures for Weights and Measures.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of GFI Group Inc.  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of GFI Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James A. Peers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Date: March 16, 2011/s/ JAMES A. PEERS James A. Peers Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Melton Ray Kennedy, * From the 90th District

 Court of Stephens County,

 Trial Court No. F33649.

Vs. No. 11-13-00164-CR * August 14, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Walter Industries, Inc.Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying Annual Report of Walter Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”),I, Gregory E. Hyland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: August 9, 2006 |                       |
|---------------------------|----------------------------|
| * *                  | /s/ GREGORY E. HYLAND | * * |
|                      | Gregory E. Hyland          |
| * *                  | *Chief Executive Officer*  |

 

----