alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7227

R. B. BOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, Federal Prison Camp; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-12-5-H) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. B. Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: R.B. Boyd, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Boyd v. Dewalt, No. CA-02-12-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2002). 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
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30529]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, 
Liquidator, or Manager

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the 
following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as 
indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in 
the Federal Register) may be relied upon as ``of record'' notice that 
the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the 
statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal 
Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the 
identification of any institutions which have been placed in 
liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of 
Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Pamela Johnson,
Regulatory Editing Specialist.

                       Institutions in Liquidation
                         [In alphabetical order]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDIC Ref.
   No.         Bank name           City          State     Date closed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10509....  Northern Star     Mankato.........  MN......      12/19/2014
            Bank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-30529 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Exhibit 10.43

AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT (this Amendment) to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as of October 1, 2003, as amended by amendments dated
November 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008 (the Current Agreement) is between PACER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Tennessee corporation (the Company), and MICHAEL E. UREMOVICH (the Executive).

The Company and the Executive are entering into this Amendment to formally memorialize an increase in the Executives base salary,
effective as of September 1, 2008. Accordingly, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Amendment, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by
the Company and the Executive, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

1. Amendment to Section 4(a) of the Current Agreement.
Section 4(a) of the Current Agreement is amended as follows:

a. The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Current Agreement is
amended and restated in its entirety as follows, effective as of September 1, 2008:

During the Employment Period, the Company
(or any of its Affiliates) shall pay the Executive a minimum annual base salary (the Base Salary) of $600,000, payable in such installments (but not less often than monthly) as is generally the policy of the Company with respect
to the payment of regular compensation to its executive officers.

2. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment,
the Current Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms and provisions.

3. Counterparts and
Electronic Execution. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, and each such counterpart shall be an original instrument, but all such counterparts taken together shall be considered one and the same agreement, effective when
one or more counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other parties, it being understood that all parties need not sign the same counterpart. Any signed counterpart delivered by facsimile, email or similar electronic means
shall be deemed for all purposes to constitute such partys good and valid execution and delivery of this Amendment.



1 of 2



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to the Employment Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives as of the date first listed above.



|                         |  |                                
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------
|PACER INTERNATIONAL, INC
|                         | 
|By:                      |  | /s/ Karen Rice                 
|                         |  | Karen Rice                     
|Title:                   |  | Vice President, Human Resources



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/ Michael E. Uremovich
|Michael E. Uremovich    



2 of 2
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

DANNIS EUGENE HARDY 12-00161-004

12790-003

05-15-13

Pro Se

✔

✔

100 84 months

05-15-13

07-21-15

11-01-15 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District 

Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.07.20 12:02:57 -06'00'

Case 1:12-cr-00161-CG-B Document 184 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY L. HANSON, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. :

 : CIVIL ACTION 13-0443-M

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Social Security Commissioner, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor 

of Plaintiff Anthony L. Hansford and against Defendant Carolyn 

W. Colvin.

DONE this 23rd day of June, 2014.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00443-M Document 25 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

374 CA 12-00260 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

GILBERTO AGUDO MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

APRIL M. REMBERT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

GILBERTO AGUDO MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK T. WHITFORD, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (John Lewis DeMarco, J.), entered December 22, 2011. The order affirmed a judgment of the Rochester City Court.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order affirming City Court’s judgment in favor of defendant in this small claims action. The record establishes that plaintiff and defendant gave different versions of the automobile accident, raising a credibility issue for the factfinder to resolve ( see generally Williams v Roper , 269 AD2d 125, 126-127, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898; Moses v Randolph , 236 AD2d 706, 707). We affirm the order, inasmuch as we agree with County Court that “substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UCCA 1807; see Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v Goldstein , 56 AD3d 1179, 1179). Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, there is no indication that City Court was biased against him ( see Makas v Every , 224 AD2d 793, 794, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 867).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### THE STATE ex rel. ROTHENBUCHER, Appellant, v. HAWES et al.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. *O’Neil By an,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*409
      *Joseph Wheless*for appellant.

*C. W. Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for respondents.

GANTT, J.

Mandamus for $1,062.86, for salary of relator and one other. Judgment for defendants and relator appealed.

Both claimants had fully served their appointed terms and were mere holdovers when they were dropped. The case is therefore within the - rule laid down in State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume. The judgment of the circuit court is for the right party, and it is affirmed.

All concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

The undersigned,Michael P. McGee, the Chief Financial Officer of International RectifierCorporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that,to his knowledge:

 

(i)                                     the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in theReport.

 

 

Dated: February 10,2006

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Michael P. McGee                           |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Michael P. McGee                               |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and                   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                        |
|   |   | (Principal Financial and  Accounting  Officer) |

 

 

A signed original of thewritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to InternationalRectifier Corporation and will be furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Blake KELLER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6572.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2006.

Decided: June 20, 2006.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Geremy C. Kamens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, John Eisinger, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Blake Keller appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider its order granting the Government’s motion to withdraw its conditional Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion. For the following reasons, we affirm.

It is well-settled that whether to file a 35(b) motion is a matter left to the government’s discretion. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b); *see also United States v. Dixon,*998 F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir.1993). However, a court may grant a downward departure in the absence of a government motion if: (1) the government has obligated itself in the plea agreement to move for a departure or (2) the government’s refusal to move for a departure was based on an unconstitutional motive. *See Wade v. United States,*504 U.S. 181, 186, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992). We find neither circumstance present here and thus conclude the Government retained absolute discretion as to whether to pursue a Rule 35(b) motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to withdraw its previously filed conditional Rule 35(b) motion and the order denying Keller’s motion for reconsideration for the reasons stated by the district court. We dispense with oral ar*291gnment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
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.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

*Board Action:*                     Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in October, 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard 47,                     *Federal Entity*.                

                    The Standard is available at                     *http://www.fasab.gov/​accounting-standards/​authoritative-source-of-gaap/​accounting-standards/​fasab-handbook/​*. For assistance in accessing the document contact FASAB at (202) 512-7350.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G St. NW., Mail Stop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548 or call 202-512-7350.

Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

Dated: December 22, 2014.

Charles Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-30595 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
#### In the Matter of Mandela Brock El-Shabazz, Petitioner, v Supreme Court of New York (IDV-1) et al., Respondents.

[970 NYS2d 883]

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Patricia E. Henry, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over a custody and visitation proceeding pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. V-00052/ 13, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal *660right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.R, Skelos, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Order entered May 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01333

- CV

ROUGH CREEK MANAGEME NT, LLC, ET AL ., Appellant s

V.

DONNA WEISS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF JORDAN WEI SS, A MINOR CHILD, Appellee

On Ap peal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 09

- 05554



### O RDER

The Court has before it appellants’ May 13, 2013 unopposed motion to extend time to file

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER that any reply brief b e filed by June 27, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2157 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2157

     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Construction for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Construction for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
              INTERIOR, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Department of 
Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Construction for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $12,847,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK S. PARR, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0258-WS-C

 )

JOHN JACKSON, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty

Company (“State Farm”) to dismiss Count Four of the complaint. (Doc. 3). The plaintiff

declined the Court’s invitation to respond, (Doc. 7), and the motion is ripe for resolution. 

Count Four alleges that State Farm “negligently and/or wantonly caused Plaintiff to

suffer damages.” (Doc. 1, Exhibit B at 6, ¶ 29). Count Four does not expressly identify the

respect in which State Farm acted negligently and/or wantonly, but it does incorporate by

reference the preceding paragraphs of the complaint. (Id., ¶ 28). Those paragraphs allege that

the plaintiff’s residence was damaged by fire and that State Farm breached the contract and

committed fraud and bad faith by failing to pay the plaintiff’s resulting claim. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 15, 18,

26). It is thus clear that Count Four alleges that State Farm negligently and/or wantonly handled,

or failed to pay, the plaintiff’s claim. 

“[M]ere negligence or mistake is not sufficient to support a claim of bad faith; there must

be a refusal to pay, coupled with a conscious intent to injure.” Ex parte Government Employees

Insurance Co., 729 So. 2d 299, 306 (Ala. 1999). That is, “[b]ad faith is an intentional tort ....” 

Jones v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., 875 So. 2d 1189, 1193 (Ala. 2003). Moreover, “[t]his

Court has consistently refused to recognize a cause of action for the negligent handling of

insurance claims.” Pate v. Rollison Logging Equipment, Inc., 628 So. 2d 337, 345 (Ala. 1993). 

Likewise, “this Court ... will not recognize a cause of action for alleged wanton handling of

insurance claims.” Kervin v. Southern Guaranty Insurance Co., 667 So. 2d 704, 706 (Ala.

1995). 

Case 2:06-cv-00258-WS-C Document 12 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

In short, the Alabama Supreme Court has explicitly rejected as non-existent the very

causes of action the plaintiff attempts to bring under Count Four. Accordingly, State Farm’s

motion to dismiss is granted, and Count Four is dismissed. Because the plaintiff is represented

by counsel but has not attempted to amend the complaint, this dismissal is without leave to

amend. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir.

2002)(en banc). 

 

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00258-WS-C Document 12 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32(d)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2003

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Energy Supply,
  LLC (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal
  financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| | · | The Covered Report fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                                             
| | · | The information contained in the Covered
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.





|Date: August 12, 2003 | /s/ James E. AbelJames E. Abel
        Treasurer
        PPL Energy Supply, LLC
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.