alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James D. LEWIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-3200.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 1, 2001.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4856

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CURTIS FIELDS, a/k/a Ann Dan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-00-263)

Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas D. “Val” Guest, Jr., PARSONS, OUVERSON, STARK, GUEST &

NEILL, P.A., Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nancy

Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Fields appeals his conviction after a guilty plea

and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)

(2000). Counsel for Fields has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal, but presenting one issue for this

Court’s review. Fields was notified of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we

affirm.

Counsel suggests that the district court did not comply

with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Fields’s

plea. Fields did not object during the plea colloquy, nor did he

move to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, Fields’s

allegations are reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,

527 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002). To meet the

plain error standard, (1) there must be an error; (2) the error

must be plain, meaning obvious or clear under current law; and

(3) the error must affect substantial rights. United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Even if these criteria are

met, an error will not be noticed unless it seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding. Id.

at 736. In light of the thorough plea colloquy by the district
- 3 -

court, we conclude that the court did not violate Rule 11 in

accepting Fields’s plea.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

for reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm

Fields’s conviction and sentence. 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 the client

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such

a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

AFFIRMED
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL )

CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., )

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00066-KD-M

)

ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA PARISH, et al., )

Defendant. ) 

 JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order issued on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff Pennsylvania National Mutual 

Casualty Insurance Company and against Defendants St. Catherine of Siena Parish and Kiker 

Corporation with regard to Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action, such that this matter is 

DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 24th day of April 2014.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00066-KD-M Document 111 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 1
Specifications, Tolerances, 

and Other Technical 

Requirements for 

Weighing and Measuring Devices 

as adopted by the 91st National Conference on Weights and Measures 2006 

Editors: 

Tina Butcher 

Linda Crown 

Lynn Sebring 

Richard Suiter 

Juana Williams 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Weights and Measures Division 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

U. S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology

William A. Jeffrey, Director 

NIST Handbook 44

2007 Edition 

Supersedes NIST Handbook 44, 2006 Edition
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44, 2007 Edition 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Handb. 44, 2005 Ed., 319 pages (Oct. 2006) 

CODEN: NIHAE2 

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 2006

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov – Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 – Fax: (202) 512-2550 

Mail: Stop SSPO, Washington, DC 20402-0001
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (THIS SCHEDULE CONAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
     10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 FOR USA INTERNATIONAL
     CHEMICAL, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         4,779
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,779
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,753
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          13
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,779
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (6,784) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     800 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (7,754) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (7,584) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.01) 
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                    FORM 10-K FOR YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997

    The undersigned  directors and officers of NATIONAL COMPUTER  SYSTEMS,  INC.
hereby  constitute  and  appoint  J. W.  Fenton,  Jr.,  their  true  and  lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for each of them and in their name, place and stead,
in any and all capacities  (including  without  limitation,  as Director  and/or
principal Executive Officer,  principal Financial Officer,  principal Accounting
Officer or any other officer of the Company),  to sign its Annual Report on Form
10-K  for the year  ended  January  31,  1997,  which  is to be  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission,  with all exhibits thereto, and any and all
documents in connection  therewith,  hereby granting unto said  attorney-in-fact
and agent full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things
requisite and necessary to be done, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorney-in-fact and agent may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

    IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 3rd
day of March, 1997.

/s/ Russell A. Gullotti                   /s/ Stephen G. Shank
---------------------------------         --------------------------------
    Russell A. Gullotti                       Stephen G. Shank

/s/ David C. Cox                          /s/ John E. Steuri
---------------------------------         --------------------------------
    David C. Cox                              John E. Steuri

/s/ Jean B. Keffeler                      /s/ Jeffrey E. Stiefler
---------------------------------         --------------------------------
    Jean B. Keffeler                          Jeffrey E. Stiefler

/s/  Moses Joseph                         /s/ John W. Vessey
---------------------------------         --------------------------------
     Moses Joseph                             John W. Vessey

/s/  Charles W. Oswald                    /s/ Jeffrey W. Taylor
---------------------------------         --------------------------------
     Charles W. Oswald                        Jeffrey W. Taylor
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Financial
Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         150,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  310,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,186
<INVENTORY>                                     62,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               622,095
<PP&E>                                       3,922,856
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,409,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,793,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          456,543
<BONDS>                                      1,219,141
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          504,993
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,128,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,793,550
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,176,686
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,023,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,580)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,733
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,853
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             90,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    90,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00490

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF U.D.R. and J.T.F., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA00460

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is

AFFIRMED.

We order that no appellate costs be assessed against appellant Mother because she is

indigent.

SIGNED November 16, 2016.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Exhibit 10.8c**AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made effective asof the 31st day of March, 2007, by and between Mylan Laboratories Inc., a Pennsylvaniacorporation (the “Company”), and Stuart A. Williams (“Executive”).     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are party to that certain Executive Employment Agreementdated as of July 1, 2004, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of April 3, 2006 (the“Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company agreed to employ Executive, and Executive accepted suchemployment, as more particularly described in the Agreement (capitalized terms used but not definedherein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement); and     WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 8(e) and 14 of the Agreement, the Company and Executive desireto modify the Term of Employment, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein;     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which arehereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:     1. Pursuant to Section 8(e) of the Agreement, the parties hereby mutually agree to extend theTerm of Employment until March 31, 2008. Further, the reference to “March 31, 2007” in Section 2of the Agreement is hereby amended to read “March 31, 2008”.     2. (a) The parties acknowledge and agree that this Amendment is an integral part of theAgreement. Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement to the contrary, in the event of anyconflict between this Amendment and the Agreement or any part of either of them, the terms of thisAmendment shall control.          (b) Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement are andshall remain in full force and effect.          (c) The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, sets forth the entire understanding of theparties with respect to the subject matter thereof and hereof.          (d) This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance withthe laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.          (e) This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be anoriginal and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.
 

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered as of the day and yearfirst above written.      MYLAN LABORATORIES INC.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10175 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GARY DEAN POSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:97-CR-61-ALL-1

-------------------- October 1, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Gary Dean Posey appeals his sentences for failure to appear and for felon in possession of a firearm. He asserts that the district court erred in failing to apply the methodology set forth in the November 1, 1998, version of U.S.S.G. § 2J1.6, comment. (n.3). Posey did not raise this specific objection in the district court. Accordingly, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Spires , 79 F.3d 464, 465 (5th Cir. 1996). To obtain relief under the plain-error standard, Posey must show an errorNo. 99-10175 -2- by the district court which is clear or obvious and which affects his substantial rights. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-63 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Posey has demonstrated that the district court plainly erred in omitting to apply the methodology set forth in the amended version of § 2J1.6, comment. (n.3). The presentence report states that the November 1, 1997, version of the Sentencing Guidelines was used to calculate Posey’s sentence. Because he was sentenced on February 8, 1999, the November 1, 1998, version of § 2J1.6, comment. (n.3) applies to Posey’s case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A). The approach set forth in that application note requires that Posey’s failure-to-appear conviction be treated as an obstruction-of-justice enhancement to the underlying felon-in-possession sentence and that the two convictions then be grouped together pursuant to § 3D1.2(c). This yields a guideline imprisonment range of 46 to 57 months. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3146(b)(2), the term of imprisonment for the failure-to-appear conviction must be consecutive to anyterm of imprisonment imposed for the underlying felon-inpossession conviction. Therefore, if, on remand, the districtcourt elects to impose a term of imprisonment on the failure-toappear conviction, Posey must receive two distinct sentences, and these sentences must be consecutive. Under § 2J1.6, comment. (n.3), however, the sum of these two sentences must not exceed the applicable guideline range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment. Posey’s sentence is hereby VACATED, and the matter REMANDED to the district court for resentencing in accordance withNo. 99-10175 -3- § 2J1.6, comment. (n.3). His request to withdraw the other issues briefed on appeal is GRANTED.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE :

COMPANY (MUTUAL),

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs. CA 05-0657-KD-C

:

LINDA M. RUFFIN,

:

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated December 20, 2005 is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 17th day of January 2006.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00657-KD-C Document 15 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 15.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Beckman Coulter, Inc.:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet of Beckman Coulter, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2009, and the related condensed consolidated statements of earnings for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, and cash flows
for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008. These condensed consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical
procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance
sheet of Beckman Coulter, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and
in our report dated February 23, 2009, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. The audit report on the consolidated financial statements refers to changes in the Companys method of accounting for
defined benefit pension and other post retirement plans and quantifying errors in 2006 due to the adoption of new accounting pronouncements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2008, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP      
|                  
|Irvine, California
|August 4, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0760-CG-C

WILLIAM BOGGAN, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00760-CG-C Document 13 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 1