alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4808 TYRONE CLINT HILL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-54) Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 25, 1999 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELDaniel J. Meador, Jr., MORIN & BARKLEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Tyrone Clint Hill was convicted of distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced to three years probation. A year later, the district courtrevoked Hill's probation and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. In an order entered before the hearing, the court gave noticethat it might impose a sentence in excess of the sentencing range recommended in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (1997). Both in the order and at the revocation hearing, however, the court stated that the issue was whether supervised release should be revoked and the court referred to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 1999). Section 3583(e)(3) governs revocation of supervised release, while probation revocation is governed by 18 U.S.C.A. § 3565 (West Supp. 1999). Both parties used the terms probation and supervised release interchangeably at the revocation hearing. On appeal, Hill contests the length of the sentence. While arguing that the sentence was not plainly unreasonable, the government concedes that resentencing is necessary because of the apparent confusion over which statute applied. Because the parties agree that resentencing is necessary, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing without r eaching the merits of Hill's claims. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
No. 4912.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### GEORGE R. STRICKLE vs. WILLIAM MASURY. (In Re Opposition of Joseph and Dryden Williams.)

C. F. Fletchinger for plaintiff and appellee.

A. J. Rossi for defendant and appellant.

ST. PAUL, J.

Defendant conducted a moving-picture show, and was seized for rent; among the things seized being two films belonging to opponents. These had been leased to defendant for a period of one night, oppo*288nents being in the habit of supplying defendant with films to be used in the conduct of liis business,; the films, being changed daily.

March 21, 1910.

Rehearing refused April 4, 1910.

The question presented is whether, under the circumstances, the films were in the leased premises only ‘ ‘ transiently” within the meaning of Civil Code, Art. 2708, so as not to.be subject to the lessor’s privilege.

The Court is of opinion that the provisions of that article have no application where the things found in a business establishment have been placed there for the use of the lessee himself, in the regular conduct of his business. To just such things does the lessor look for payment of his rent.

Twitty vs. Clark, 14 An. 503; Goodrich vs. Bodley, 35 An. 525.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

680 

CA 14-01764 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

CANANDAIGUA EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC., PENFIELD 

VOLUNTEER EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., 

NORTHEAST QUADRANT ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT, INC., 

CHILI VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., AND 

VILLAGE OF MACEDON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROCHESTER AREA HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION, 

INC., DOING BUSINESS AS PREFERRED CARE, 

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

PINSKY LAW GROUP, PLLC, SYRACUSE (BRADLEY M. PINSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. 

LECLAIR KORONA GIORDANO COLE LLP, ROCHESTER (JEREMY M. SHER OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew

A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered May 27, 2014. The order, among other

things, granted defendant’s motion for leave to reargue and, upon

reargument, adhered to its decision denying that part of plaintiffs’

cross motion seeking to preclude certain evidence. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Canandaigua Emergency Squad, Inc. v

Rochester Area Health Maintenance Org., Inc. ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [July 10, 2015]).

Entered: July 10, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections                           ( print page 29499)                        552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential  trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals  associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Community Conference.                    

*Date:*                         July 16-17, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michele C. Hindi-Alexander, PhD,  Division of Scientific Review,  National Institutes of Health,  Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute  of Child Health and Human Development,  6100 Executive Boulevard, Rm. 5B01,  Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435-8382.                         *hindialm@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan   Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 12, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-14509 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rodney Snyder, Appellant, v Warden of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted October 18, 2010;

decided December 16, 2010

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.
# Multimedia About Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Technical Assistance Webinar: Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia (AMP® SCZ): Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Clinical Trial Network (U01 Clinical Trial Required)

Office for Disparities Research and Workforce Diversity Webinar Series: Addressing the Risk for Persistent Effects of Trauma in the Mental Health of Women Across the Lifecourse

NIMH-Funded Researcher Dr. Barbara Rothbaum Discusses Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-E ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 12th day of May, 2006.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-E
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-E and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-E and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-F  ("Issuer") for the period
ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"):

(a)  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

         Dated this 15th day of May, 2003.

                          GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                          PARTNERSHIP II-F
                          ("Issuer")

                          //s// Dennis R. Neill
                          -----------------------------------
                          Dennis R. Neill
                          President (Chief Executive Officer)

                          //s// Craig D. Loseke
                          -----------------------------------
                          Craig D. Loseke
                          Chief Accounting Officer
                          (Chief Financial Officer)


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-F and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-F and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

95-2638.

#### State ex rel. Talbert v. Interim Personnel Pool.

Franklin App. No. 95APD03-317. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

*1406ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000824894     
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                 2,469,615
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            457,471
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,927,086
<PP&E>                                30,901,780
<DEPRECIATION>                        26,618,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         8,121,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    236,412
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             7,727,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           8,121,258
<SALES>                                3,025,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       5,464,593
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          2,075,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        3,389,086
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    3,389,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           3,389,086
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               6.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYBRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  236,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,761
<INVENTORY>                                    231,419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               537,168
<PP&E>                                         255,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                 240,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,023,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,210
<BONDS>                                        972,418
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,052
<OTHER-SE>                                     731,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   732,792
<SALES>                                        941,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               941,651
<CGS>                                          450,534
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  264,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (809)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                172,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                    68,187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            104,617
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   104,617
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------




                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William E. Saxelby, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

 i.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 ii.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company.

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



                                    /s/ William E. Saxelby
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    William E. Saxelby
                                    President & Chief Executive Officer


February 8, 2011
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14259

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02812-MHS

LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COMMUNITY & SOUTHERN BANK, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(June 29, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) appeals the district court’s order 

denying reconsideration of Lexon’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 11 

Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We review the district court’s denial of 

reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. 

State of Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 

2000). Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(E), “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be 

filed as a matter of routine practice.” Rather, such motions are only appropriate 

when “absolutely necessary” to present: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an 

intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a 

clear error of law or fact. Bryant v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D. 

Ga. 2003). Lexon did not advance any of the foregoing grounds for 

reconsideration either in this Court or the district court, and as such, Lexon’s 

appeal is meritless. 

Even assuming, arguendo, that Lexon is asserting clear error under Rule 

7.2(E), we are not persuaded. As the district court observed, Lexon seeks

reimbursement of over $10,000 in attorney’s fees for more than 50 hours spent 

researching and drafting a 7-page response to Community & Southern Bank’s

motion. Lexon’s response merely pointed out the Bank’s obvious failure to 

comply with Rule 11’s requirements. The district court denied this request as 

“grossly excessive.” Although we have not decided the issue, several other circuits 

have held that district courts do not abuse their discretion by wholly denying 

Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

exorbitant fee applications when an award of fees is permissive, as in the instant 

case. Andrews v. United States, 122 F.3d 1367, 1375 (11th Cir. 1997); see Budget 

Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Consolidated Equity LLC, 428 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 

2005); Fair Housing Council of Greater Wash. v. Landow, 999 F.2d 92, 96-97 (4th 

Cir. 1993); Lewis v. Kendrick, 944 F.2d 949, 956 (1st Cir. 1991). Because it is at 

“at least arguable” that the district court was entitled to deny Lexon’s request 

outright, the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Battle, 272 F. 

Supp. 2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (“An error is not clear and obvious if the 

legal issues are at least arguable.”) (internal quotation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 3 of 3
#### In re: Bahman PAYMAN, Appellant. Gabor Laufer, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1420.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 2, 2006.

*182Michael A. Bragg, Bragg Law, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Wm. W. Eskridge, Cameron S. Bell, Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM.

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

PER CURIAM:

By order entered March 31, 2005, the district court permanently enjoined and prohibited Bahman Payman from filing any lawsuit against Gabor Laufer, M.D., and other named individuals without first obtaining written leave from the court. In February 2006, Payman sought leave from the district court to file a lawsuit against Laufer. By order entered February 28, 2006, the district court denied Payman’s request. Payman now appeals the district court’s denial.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *In re: Bahman Payman,*No. 2:06-MC-00003-jpj (WD.Va. Feb. 28, 2006). 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.*