alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1641

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of

Arkansas

Clifton James Williams, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 25, 1997

 Filed: September

25, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Clifton James Williams appeals from the sentence

imposed by the United States District Court for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas after he pleaded guilty to

possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(j). After the district court accepted Williams&s

guilty plea, a presentence report (PSR) was prepared which
-2-

indicated a Category VI criminal history based on 13

criminal history points. In a letter to the probation

officer who prepared the PSR, Williams objected to the

inclusion in his
-3-

criminal history of an aggravated robbery conviction,

asserting that it had been nol prossed. At the sentencing

hearing, however, Williams stated that the PSR was

factually correct, indicated that he had received

certified documentation of the objected-to conviction, and

withdrew his objection. The district court then sentenced

Williams to 92 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised

release. On appeal, Williams argues that the district

court miscalculated his criminal history category by

assigning criminal history points to him based on the

aggravated robbery conviction at issue and a second

related conviction for aggravated robbery. We affirm.

Because Williams failed to properly object to the

PSR&s assessment of points for the two aggravated robbery

convictions, we review only for plain error and find none.

See United States v. Wajda, 1 F.3d 731, 732-33 (8th Cir.

1993) (per curiam) (finding no plain error where defendant

objected to PSR&s assessment of criminal history point in

letter to probation officer, retracted objection at

sentencing as counsel had seen proof of conviction, and

failed to produce evidence showing document relied upon by

probation officer was incorrect or that disputed charge

had been dismissed).

Williams also argues that counsel performed

deficiently at sentencing. Because ineffective assistance

claims are properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceeding brought in the sentencing court, we do not

address that claim; for this reason, we also deny

Williams&s pro se request to proceed on appeal under §

2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Martin, 59

F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (ineffective assistance
-4-

claims are more appropriately raised in § 2255 motions

than on direct appeal). 

Accordingly, we affirm Williams&s conviction without

prejudice to his right to raise his ineffective assistance

claim in a properly filed § 2255 motion.
-5-

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
23  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-137446, 333-36188, and 33-118663 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 31,
2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Analysts International Corporation and subsidiaries (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
to the change in accounting for stock-based compensation in 2006 described in
Note A) appearing in or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Analysts International Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended January
3, 2009.   /s/
  Deloitte & Touche LLPMinneapolis,
  MinnesotaMarch 31,
  2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      7
<MULTIPLIER>                       1000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   Dec-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>             92184
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>               92184
<EQUITIES>                        46876
<MORTGAGE>                         4243
<REAL-ESTATE>                        46
<TOTAL-INVEST>                   152583
<CASH>                            51044
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                25164
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>            16483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   271860
<POLICY-LOSSES>                  125909
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>               24412
<POLICY-OTHER>                     3997
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                 0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                   28600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                         164
<COMMON>                          18921
<OTHER-SE>                        59098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     271860
<PREMIUMS>                        88682
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>               11457
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                 1076
<OTHER-INCOME>                        0
<BENEFITS>                        61018
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>        9704
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>              22322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    8171
<INCOME-TAX>                        138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                8033
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                       8033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.35
<RESERVE-OPEN>                    57220
<PROVISION-CURRENT>               59655
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                    21
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                33857
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                  22246
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                   56103
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>               0


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 18
- 00587
- CV

Cielo Property Group, LLC; Robert Dillard III; and Robert Gandy IV, Appellant s

v. Branigan Mulcahy, Appellee

FROM THE 250TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 18
- 00342 9, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESI DING

O R D E R
PER CURIAM

Appellants have filed an emergency motion for temporary relief, seeking a stay of the underlying proceedings during the pendency of their interlocutory appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration. We grant the motion for temp orary relief and stay
the trial

- court proceedings until the disposition of the appeal or until further order of this Court.
See Tex. R. App. P. 29.3 (“[T]he appellate court may make any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition of the appeal . . . .”)

.

It is ordered on September 20, 2018

.

Before Justices Goodwin, Field, and Bourland
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Robert G. Errington.

March 2, 1942.
#### In the Matter of Rosemarie B., Petitioner, v Carol C., Appellant, and Ronnie C. et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 3, 2011;

decided March 31, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that appellant is not a party aggrieved *(see*CPLR 5511).

Judge Pigott taking no part.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15

- 1378 V Filed: March 10, 2016 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SHARON ALLEN

, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine ; Shoulder

* Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); Special AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”) * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA
, for petitioner. Glenn A. MacLeod , U .S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dors ey , Chief Special Master:

On Nov ember 16, 2015

, Sharon Allen (“p etitioner ”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”)

. Peti tioner alleges that as a result of receiving an influenza (“ flu ”) vaccine on September 30, 2014 , she suffered a n injury to her left shoulder

. Petit ion at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On Mar ch 10, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) R eport in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1 . Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused

- in

fact by the flu vaccine she received on September 30 , 2014

. Id. at 4. Respondent further stated that she did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, and that

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ). v.2 the records show petitioner has suffered the sequela of this injury for more than six months

. Id. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 5.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record , the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS CLASS II - AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***DROP AND COUNT (DAC)***

Page 18 of 22
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41007 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ALFONSO RAMIREZ

- GARZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14

- CR

- 409

- 1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Alfonso Ramirez

- Garza raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F .3d 198, 204

- 05 (5th Cir. 2015) , petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14

- 10355)

. In Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d at 204

- 05, we held that an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug

* 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 August 1 8 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41007 Document: 00513157982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015No. 14

- 41007

2 trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior offense required proof of remuneration or commercial acti vity. Ramirez

- Garza also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez

- Escareno , 700 F.3d 751, 753

- 54 (5th Cir. 2012), which held that an enhancement pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) applies to a prior conviction for the federal crime of conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense

. The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 14-41007 Document: 00513157982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134716 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134716 

 COA: 277841 

Oakland CC: 2006-209492-FH 

JASON CHRISTOPHER GREEN,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 13, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2015-10-29 13:28:52","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2015"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"6"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["11"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["10"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["16"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2015","quarter":"Q4"}
#### In the Matter of David Burr, Appellant, v Timothy B. Howard, Sheriff of Erie County, Respondent.

Submitted March 19, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
**Aviation ManagementChecklist #04**

**Aviation ManagementChecklist #04**

For the National Preparedness Review you will need to have the following items available for review.

**4-1Revised 2008**

1-                                   2003

**4-4Revised 2008**
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

FRESH CHOICE INC.
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND EQUIVALENT SHARE
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Fiscal Year Ended
                         --------------------------------------------------
                          December 29,      December 31,      December 25,
                                  1996              1995              1994
                         --------------    --------------    --------------
<S>                      <C>                <C>               <C>
   Net income (loss)           ($2,001)         ($27,796)           $3,198
                         ==============    ==============    ==============

   Weighted average
   common shares                 5,625             5,504             5,446
   outstanding

   Common share
   equivalents related
   to stock options (1)             --                --                98
                         --------------    --------------    --------------

   Shares used in 
   computation                   5,625             5,504             5,544
                         ==============    ==============    ==============

   Net income (loss)
   per common and
   equivalent share             ($0.36)           ($5.05)            $0.58
                         ==============    ==============    ==============
</TABLE>

(1) Common share equivalents relating to stock options, warrants and convertible
preferred sh have been excluded from the computations for 1996 and 1995 as they
would be anti-dilutive.


                                       63
Exhibit 3.8

                           CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION

                                       of

               SERIES E CONVERTIBLE PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK

                                       of

                              COMFORCE CORPORATION

                         (Pursuant to Section 151(g) of
                      the Delaware General Corporation Law)


     COMFORCE  Corporation,  a corporation duly organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Company"), hereby certifies
that the  following  Resolutions  were  adopted by the Board of Directors of the
Company as required by Section 151 of the General  Corporation  Law of the State
of Delaware and pursuant to authority  expressly  vested in it by the provisions
of its Certificate of Incorporation,  as amended, at a meeting duly convened and
held on February 20, 1997:

                  NOW,  THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED,  that none of the authorized
                  shares of Series E Convertible  Participating  Preferred Stock
                  remain  outstanding,  and none will be issued  pursuant to the
                  Certificate of  Designations  previously  filed by the Company
                  with the Secretary of State of Delaware; and further

                  RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority granted to and vested
                  in the Board of  Directors of the Company in  accordance  with
                  the  provisions  of  the  Certificate  of  Incorporation,   as
                  amended,  the Board of Directors hereby authorizes,  approves,
                  and  adopts the  Certificate  of  Elimination  of the Series E
                  Convertible   Participating   Preferred   Stock  in  the  form
                  presented to the Directors, which form the Assistant Secretary
                  of the  Company  is  directed  to attach to these  minutes  as
                  "Exhibit A;" and further

                  RESOLVED,  that any proper Officer of the Company be, and each
                  of them hereby is,  authorized to execute,  deliver,  and file
                  the Certificate of Elimination  with the Secretary of State of
                  Delaware,  and  to  execute,  deliver,  and  file  such  other
                  documents and to do any and all actions and things in the name
                  of the Company determined by any one of them to be



<PAGE>


                  necessary and  appropriate in connection with the carrying out
                  of the foregoing resolutions and matters contemplated thereby.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  COMFORCE  Corporation has caused its corporate seal to
be  hereunder  affixed  and this  certificate  to be  executed  on behalf of the
Company by its Chief Financial Officer this __ day of February, 1997.


                              COMFORCE CORPORATION


                              By:                 /s/ Paul Grillo
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Paul J. Grillo, Chief Financial Officer
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR PHONE: 505 869-3111

FAX: 505 869-7596

PUEBLO OF ISLETA

P. O. BOX 1270, ISLETA, NM 87022

July 9, 2018

Via email: 543_comments@nigc.gov

Chairman Jonodev O. Chaudhuri
National Indian Gaming Commission
1849 C Street NW, MS 1621
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Pueblo of Isleta Comments - Proposed Revisions to 25 CFR 543

Dear Chairman Chaudhuri,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to 25 CFR 543. The
Pueblo of Isleta hereby submits the following comments and questions:

Section 543.17(j)(1)(i-iv).

It is our understating that this section applies to all Class II games, including card games
and bingo, as well as kiosks. However, in this part, “For kiosks” is proposed to be removed. Is
the intent here to have this section only apply to card games?

If that is not the intent, we recommend revising the definition of “Drop box” in section 543.2
to remove the phrase “typically used in card games.” If that phrase is removed, then that part
would be inclusive of financial instrument storage components, which is the language used
in the Drop and Count Standards.

Is the proposed section 543.17(j)(1)(ii) and (iii) supposed to be all encompassing for card
games, bingo and kiosks (and is that the reason the current section 543.17(j)(1)(v) and (vi)
removing “Kiosk release keys“ and “kiosk content keys” is proposed)?

Additionally, Drop cabinet is not defined in the 543.2 standards. That definition is included
in the 542.2 standards, which are now obsolete.

Section 543.17(j)(4).

Again, it is our understating that this section applies card games, bingo, and kiosks. Because
Security typically maintains all the drop and count keys, this proposed section would make it
difficult for Security to help with an emergency drop or anytime access to the bill cassette is
needed because Security maintains the keys. Emergency drops are not rare because they
occur due to a full canister, a problem with a cassette, a guest dispute or billjams. This
language would now prohibit a Security Officer from serving as one of the drop agents.



Section 543.17(j)(7).

What is the intent of this statement? It is unclear if this is intended to address situations
that require immediate access as described above.

Section 543.17(j)(8).

Is this inclusive of a manual controlled key box as opposed an electronic key box or both?
What is the intent of emergency manual keys? Does removal of the player interface drop and
count still need to meet the requirements set forth under the regularly scheduled drop and
count in addition to these requirements (such as section 543.17(e)(4))?

Section 543.17(j)(8)(i)
Does this also apply to the financial instrument storage components and drop box?

Feel free to contact the Pueblo of Isleta Gaming Regulatory Agency at 505-244-8139 if any
clarification is needed on the comments and questions outlined above.

Sincerely,

PUEBLO OF ISLETA

i

J. Robert Benavides
Governor

ce: Georgene Louis, Executive Director, Pueblo of Isleta Gaming Regulatory Agency