alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1832

TERRY HARRIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. POWHATAN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POWHATAN COUNTY, VIRGINIA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv - 00794

- JAG )

Submitted : March 9, 2022 Decided: May 1 2 , 2022

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Barbara Queen, LAWRENCEQUEEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Melissa Y. York, Jeremy D. Capps, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, V irginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry Harris, who was previously employed by the County of Powhatan, Virginia, appeals the district court’s order granting the Powhatan Board of Superviso rs summary judgment on Harris’ claims of discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e

- 17; age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; and disability, in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

. See Harris v. Powhatan Bd. o f S upervisors , No

. 3:20

- cv - 00794

- JAG ( W.D.N.C

. June 29, 2021 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TYRONE HILLERY, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0547-WS-C

 )

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, )

 )

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on this date, granting defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (doc. 55), it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that this action be, and the

same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00547-WS-C Document 67 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1520

CHRISTINA M. VOGT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MACY’S INC. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv
- 00069

- GMG

- RWT )

Submitted : December 22, 2020 Decided: December 28, 2020

Before NIEMEYER , FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Christina M. Vogt , Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Umberto Leonoro , STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC , Charleston , West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christina M. Vogt appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to remand and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant lea ve to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vogt v. Macy ’ s
Inc. , No. 3:19

- cv
- 00069

- GMG

- RWT (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 17 , 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.1


 


	
  Officer

  	
   

  	
  Annual Salary

  	
   

  	
  2006 Bonus Target*

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas W.
  Adams

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  656,000

  	
   

  	
  100% of annual salary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Marty J.
  Rowland

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  359,000

  	
   

  	
  65% of annual salary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Mary
  Mikkelson

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  332,000

  	
   

  	
  60% of annual salary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Roger G.
  Addison

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  282,000

  	
   

  	
  50% of annual salary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Robert Y.
  Brown

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  262,000

  	
   

  	
  45% of annual salary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Gregory E.
  Thomas

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  248,000

  	
   

  	
  45% of annual salary

  	
   

  



 










*Operational and financial metrics for determining bonus eligibility
will be determined at the Board’s and Executive Compensation Committee’s December meetings.
EXHIBIT 4.25


 


Deed of settlement and release – Mr Ian F Scholes


 


The
deed of settlement and release of Mr Ian F Scholes is incorporated by reference
to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Commission on January 20,
2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1999  FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  OF  MAGNITUDE   INFORMATION   SYSTEMS,   INC.  AND
SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                                246,720
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         192,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                          100,868
<INVENTORY>                                            17,963
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      859,769
<PP&E>                                                308,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                        181,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      2,319,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               3,155,745
<BONDS>                                               950,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  842
<OTHER-SE>                                         (1,817,252)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        2,319,174
<SALES>                                               110,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      110,180
<CGS>                                                  86,439
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         356,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      976,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    109,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (1,309,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1,309,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1,309,623)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.17)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

September 21, 2020

Order 

Clerk

September 21, 2020

162029(26)

In re MENEFEE.

______________________________________

RICO MENEFEE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 162029

v COA: 352920

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to suspend fees is considered and it is 

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable 

for filing fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to 

continue, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this order 

and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order as acknowledgement of his 

responsibility to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to do so shall result in the appeal being 

administratively dismissed.

If appellant timely complies with this order, monthly payments shall be made to the 

Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s 

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. That amount shall then be 

remitted to this Court.

Generally, appellant may not file a new civil action or appeal in this Court until the 

filing fee in this case is paid in full. MCL 600.2963(8).

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return 

a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
**Exhibit32.1**

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

650 S. EdmondsLane, Suite 108, Lewisville, TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone   972.219.3311 Fax

May 10,2007

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

I, PaulK. Willmott, President and Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31,2007 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| */s/* Paul K. Willmott                | * * |
|---------------------------------------|----------|
| Paul K. Willmott                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| May 10, 2007                          |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Jack RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50525.

D.C. No. CR-97-01073-RMB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2001.

Decided March 23, 2001.

Before ALARCON, BRUNETTI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Ramirez’s affiliation with the Vista Home Boys gang in connection with the witness tampering charges against Ramirez. The evidence was relevant to establish a connection between Ramirez’s plans to have witnesses “forget” and the actual threatening visits to the witnesses by other gang members. The court and the government took reasonable steps to minimize any prejudicial effect of the testimony, including: 1) the government offered to stipulate to the gang membership; 2) the trial judge questioned jurors about potential gang biases and dismissed at least one juror on such grounds; 3) the government did not mention gang membership in its opening statement, although defense counsel did and specifically pointed to the lack of connection between the plan and proof; 4) the government did not elicit any testimony regarding specific activities by Ramirez in the gang; 5) the government told the jury in its closing that it would be improper to convict the defendant solely because of his gang membership; and 6) the trial court gave a detailed limiting instruction on the proper use of the gang membership evidence. *See United States v. Easter,*66 F.3d 1018, 1020-21 (9th Cir.1995)(no abuse of discretion to admit gang membership evidence where government had offered to stipulate, government did not inquire as to defendants’ specific gang activities, government did not emphasize gang affiliation *454in its closing, district court conducted voir dire on gang bias, and district court gave cautionary instruction on proper use of evidence).

On the facts of this case, the probative value of the gang membership evidence was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” Fed.R.Evid. 403, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting such evidence.

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.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
ALLTEL Corporation on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 2-99523, 33-35343, 33-48476,
33-54175, 33-56291, and 33-65199) of our report dated February 13, 1998, on our
audits of the financial statements of the New York SMSA Limited Partnership (the
"Partnership") as of and for the years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996, which
report is included in this Form 10-K.

                                             /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 24, 1999

                                       83
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Lamar Advertising Company:

We consent to the use of our report dated February 6, 1998, except as to Note
18, which is as of February 27, 1998, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Lamar Advertising Company and subsidiaries as of October 31, 1996 and
December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended October 31,
1995 and 1996, the two months ended December 31, 1996, and the year ended
December 31, 1997, incorporated herein by reference and to the reference to our
firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.




                                                     /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                                     KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



New Orleans, Louisiana
October 21, 1998
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50822 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. CHRISTOPHER ANDREW WILSON, also known as Wiggy , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:13

- CR

- 138

- 2

Before DENNIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges, PER CURIAM: * Christopher Andrew Wilson, federal prisoner # 18729

- 380, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In so doing, Wilson challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997)

.

* 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 May 21, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50822 Document: 00514965817 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2019No. 18

- 50822

2 Under the preamendment Guidelines, Wilson’s attributable drug quantity of 29.34 kilogram s of crack cocaine resulted in a base offense level of 38, a total offense level of 40, and an advisory sentence range of 360 months to life. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2013). Although Amendment 782 provides a basis for reducing a prisoner’s sentence un der U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 (d), p.s., possession of at least 25.2 kilograms of crack cocaine still yields a base offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782; § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2018). Thus, leaving all other guideline ap plication decisions unaffected, see § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s., Wilson’s total offense level remains 40, and his advisory guidelines range remains 360 years to life, see U.S.S.G. Ch.5, Pt.A (Sentencing Table). Consequently, Amendment 782 “does not have the e ffect of lowering [Wilson’s] applicable guideline range ,” and he is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence under § 3582(c)(2). § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. Because there is no nonfrivolous argument that the denial of Wilson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was error, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED , and Wilson’s appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2 ; Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24 ; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983)

. Case: 18-50822 Document: 00514965817 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SULLIVAN WILKERSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0787-CG-C

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN :

RESOURCES,

:

Defendant. 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be and is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2005.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00787-CG-C Document 9 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 1
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00618- CV

In re Ar dell Nelson, Jr.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus larg ely co m p l ai n i ng that the district cler k and the district court had not pr operly prepa red the rec ord in a

n appea l f iled from the district court’s denial of rela tor’s motion for DNA testing. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. The documents rela tor seeks to ha

ve added to the f

ile are not ne cessa

ry to the appea l, how ever , and rela tor has not show n that the di strict cler

k or t he di s t ri ct court have vi olated their minist eria l duties or orders i ssued by this Court. W e deny

the petition for wr it of mandamus.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Filed: Aug ust 9, 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARATON ADAMS, et al., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, L.LC., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Order on 

Motion in Limine (Doc. 491).1

 Plaintiffs move the Court to alter or amend the order entered on 

September 20, 2011, and allege that the decision is “unfathomable”, “improper”, “wrong”, 

“ignore[s] the fact[s]” and is “in violation of Eleventh Circuit precedent”. 

The disputed prior order on a motion in limine denied Defendant’s “request to ‘preclude 

plaintiffs from offering any testimony from any of the 18 plaintiffs whose claims are not being 

tried’" but explained that in 

Plaintiffs' case in chief, the court will not allow testimony from any plaintiffs (not 

set for trial) regarding alleged racially discriminatory acts at Austal unless there 

has been evidence submitted at trial that one of the trial plaintiffs was aware of 

the discriminatory act during his employment at Austal AND the Defendant has 

challenged that the act occurred. 

(Doc. 481). 

 Upon consideration, the motion (Doc. 491) is DENIED to the extent that the ruling 

stands as a preliminary ruling. The Court excluded the “me too” evidence in order to prevent 

mini-trials on incidents not related to the plaintiffs and to prevent cumulative evidence. There are 

 1

 Austal’s motion to Strike is DENIED. (Doc. 495). 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 496 Filed 09/25/11 Page 1 of 2
five plaintiffs which are expected to testify to numerous incidents, which if consistent with their 

deposition testimony, will cover more than a majority of the incidents that allegedly occurred 

throughout a very large facility over a period of two to four years. Moreover, as previously 

stated, if the defendant infers that the incidents did not occur, plaintiffs will be allowed to present 

additional evidence in support of their contention. 

 To the extent that plaintiffs propose to offer testimony of racial slurs and other racial 

activity by supervisors and members of management who participated in promotion and pay 

decisions specifically related to the plaintiffs’ remaining pay and promotion claims, the court 

will reconsider its ruling upon a proffer of this evidence at the close of trial on Monday, 

September 26, 2011. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of September 2011.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 496 Filed 09/25/11 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MONARCH
CEMENT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIAIRIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,254,795
<SECURITIES>                                19,622,255
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,174,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                   412,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,504,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,613,585
<PP&E>                                     108,611,675
<DEPRECIATION>                              79,239,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,882,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,704,127
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,443,490
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,692,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,882,021
<SALES>                                     99,494,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            99,494,758
<CGS>                                       78,349,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               78,349,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,252,808
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,600,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,652,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,652,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30
        

</TABLE>