alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 On Remand from the U.S. Supreme Court Submitted July 19, 2006 Decided August 3, 2006 Before Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 04-1771 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. VIRGIL SMITH, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division No. 1:03-CR-6 Theresa L. Springmann, Judge

.

O R D E R In United States v. Smith , 415 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2005), we affirmed Virgil Smith’s conviction of one count of aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of aiding and abetting in the use of a firearm, during and in relation to a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In so doing, we found that the district court violated Smith’s right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, but that the violation was harmless. Smith , 415 F.3d at 686. After a limited remand in accordance with United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 04-1771 Page 2

(7th Cir. 2005), we affirmed Smith’s 221-month sentence as well. United States v. Smith , 2006 WL 1506815 (unpublished order) (June 1, 2006). Smith filed a petition for certiorari . The Supreme Court granted his petition, vacating our judgment and remanding Smith’s case back to us for further consideration in light of Zedner v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 1976 (2006), which ho lds that “harmless-error review is not appropriate” inthe Speedy Trial Act context, id. at 1990. Smith v. United States , 126 S.Ct. 2859 (2006). Although Zednerwas concerned with an “ends of justice” extension of the time for trial, granted under § 3161(h)(8), and Smith’s case concerns the question whether a motion was “actually under advisement by the court,” for purposes of § 3161(h)(1)(J), we see no principled difference between the two for purposes of harmless error review. The language of the Speedy Trial Act is just as mandatory for one subsection of § 3161(h) as it is for the others, and there is nothing in the Act that suggests that the command of § 3161(c) setting forth the time in which trial “shall” begin depends on which exception is invoked. In accordance with Circuit Rule 54, we requested that both parties file position statements as to what action we ought to take on remand. Both parties take the position that Zedner ’s holding controls Smith’s case too, and that Smith’s conviction should be reversed and his sentence vacated. We agree. All that remains is to remand this case to the district court to determin e, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2), whether to dismiss Smith’s case with or without prejudice. Accordingly, we R EVERSE Smith’s conviction, V ACATE his sentence, and R EMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Thomas A. Williams, Chief Financial 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:

(i) the Form
10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2007.                                                   
|                                                                       
|/s/ Thomas A. Williams                                                 
|Thomas A. Williams Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date: July / V,2015

FILED IN

1ST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

JUL 16 2015 FROM: Mr. Clair A. Wolf

TDCJt 01859849

CHRiSTOPHERA»Ph.,.£: Pack I Unit

VjVH 2400 Wallace Pack Rd.

clerk; Fr^' i Navasota, Texas 77868

Mr. Christopher Pine, Clerk

Court of Appeals

First Court of Appeals

301 Fannin St. -Wt

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

IN RE: In regard to the card that I received on July 9, 2015 on Cause #

1354683 and Appeal Court No.# 14-13-01119-CR, Clair A. Wolf

v. State; Trial Court No(s), 135483 the new cause No. per card

is 01-15-00580-CR

Dear Christopher Pine/

I received your card informing me that you filed my writ of mandamus

to compel the 248th District Court of Harris County to set/ hear/ and

rule on a properly filed motion in said Court on April 15,2015/ I noticed

that the Cause Number is one number off due to a type-o. Instead of

135483 the number on the card is 135482. I looked at my copy and noticed

the typist made a type-o on the motion but the cover letter was correct

so please, correct this mistake that was made by mistake on my part.

Also this ease was originally in the 14th Court of Appeals of Harris

County/ Texas not the First Court of Appeals of Harris County, Texas.

I hope the Court will please overlook this mistake on my part without

looking on me unfavorably please, and thank you for your quick response.

Sincerely,

FTr-.^Ilair A. Wolt
@misc{1212416,
  author = {Elizabeth Rasmussen and Boris Wilthan and Brian Simonds},
  title = {Report from the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Lithography Working Group Meeting: Current State, Needs, and Path Forward},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-22 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956144},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-208},
  language = {en},
}
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13130

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00005-RV-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

LANE THOMAS REED, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(July 24, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-13130 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Spiro Kypreos, appointed counsel for Lane Thomas Reed, has filed a motion 

to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Reed’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-13130 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

NORTHWEST METAL CRAFTS TRUST 

FUND,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SWEED MACHINERY INC., an Oregon 

corporation,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-35947

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01676-MAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Mary A. Theiler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2015

Seattle, Washington

Before: NGUYEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and ZOUHARY,** District 

Judge.

Sweed Machinery Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees of the Northwest Metal Crafts Trust 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, District Judge for the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 21 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Fund. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, 

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 255 (9th Cir. 1996), we affirm.

Assuming, without deciding, that the 2007 collective bargaining agreement 

(“CBA”) is ambiguous, we agree with the district court that extrinsic evidence 

establishes that Sweed was required to make contributions to the Trust Fund in the 

month following an employee’s termination, transfer to a non-union position, or 

opt-out. See Ariz. Laborers v. Conquer Cartage Co., 753 F.2d 1512, 1518 n.9 

(9th Cir. 1985). The Board’s uncontradicted evidence of industry practice 

regarding the reporting of employees’ hours to the Trust Fund, coupled with 

evidence that eligibility for benefits depends on the hours worked by an employee 

in previous months, supports the district court’s conclusion that the Board’s 

interpretation of the CBA is the only one that is consistent with the intent of the 

parties. Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in 

favor of the Board. See id. 

AFFIRMED.
# covid_table26_c22_state
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 870 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 870

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 27, 2020.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Agriculture: Ms. Torres Small of New Mexico.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, ranked as 
follows on the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on the Budget: Mr. Khanna (to rank immediately after Mr. Cooper).
    Committee on Oversight and Reform: Mr. Khanna (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Rouda).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15708

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00030-JRH-BKE-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

SAINTWAIN RONNIE ROBERTS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 27, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-15708 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Henry N. Crane III, appointed counsel for Saintwain Ronnie Roberts in this 

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals 

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Roberts’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-15708 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 2 of 2
#### WELTY v. CLUTE et al.

Civ. No. 44.

District Court, W. D. New York.

Aug. 20, 1940.

Ferris, Burgess, Hughes & Dorrance, of Utica, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Mandeville, Waxman, Buck, Teeter & Harpending, of Elmira, N. Y., for defendants.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

Two motions are presented for decision: One to take the deposition of the plaintiff; the other for discovery.

Upon plaintiff’s application, his deposition was taken for the purpose of perpetuating his testimony. The plaintiff was examined and cross-examined at length. I have carefully read and re-read this deposition. While many of the answers of the plaintiff upon the cross-examination are not responsive to questions put, it seems to me that the deposition in its entirety answers all that is material in the examination now proposed and that a further examination is not necessary. I may.further add that the bill of particulars recently served supplements this deposition heretofore taken with respect to these matters.

I have in mind the fact that the plaintiff’s deposition was taken before issue was joined, but this fact alone is not material. While the bill of particulars does *447not take the place of a deposition taken under Rule 26, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the particulars stated become a part of the complaint, and if this is specific as to certain matters, there would not be need for a deposition as to these.

Further, I am led to the conclusion that the motion for taking of deposition should be denied since I am granting the motion for discovery in all the respects sought. The general objection is made to the motion for discovery that good cause is not shown and that it does not appear that the documents referred to “constitute or contain evidence material” or that such docu-> ments are “in the possession or control of the plaintiff.” I think the record is sufficient in this respect.

As I read the deposition of the plaintiff, he has testified that in the taking of that deposition he had submitted all of the papers and documents that he had with reference to the transactions involved in this suit. If this is a truthful statement, it will not be necessary for him to deny possession or knowledge of any other documents. Of course, if there are other documents or other documents have come into his possession or to his attention since the taking of the deposition, these should be specifically set forth.

The motion for taking of deposition is denied.

The motion for discovery is granted.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.105

                    AMENDMENT NO.1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


        THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this 31st day of December,
1995, by and between MICHAEL FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Michael Foods"), and JOHN D. REEDY (hereinafter referred
to as "Reedy").

        WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Reedy have heretofore entered into an
employment agreement dated as December 31, 1994; and

        WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Reedy desire to amend Sections 2 and 3
of said agreement to amend and clarify certain terms thereof.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the terms and
conditions set forth, the parties agree as follows:

        1.  Section 2 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Reedy dated December 31, 1994 is hereby amended by substituting the
following for the phrase "shall continue through December 31, 1996":

              shall continue through December 31, 1997


        2.  Section 3 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Reedy dated December 31, 1994 is hereby amended by substituting the following
for the phrase "for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from January 1,
1995 through December 31, 1996 of at least $185,000":

              for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from January 1,
              1996 through December 31, 1997 of at least $195,000

Except as otherwise provided herein, the employment agreement between Michael
Foods and Reedy dated December 31, 1994 shall remain in full force and effect.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date
and year above written.

                                          MICHAEL FOODS, INC.

                                          By /s/ Gregg Ostrander
                                             ------------------------
                                            Its  PRESIDENT/CEO
                                               ----------------------
                                             /s/ John Reedy
                                             ------------------------
                                                   JOHN D. REEDY     














                                      1
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December
      31, 2004 (the “Report”) of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Franklin
      Capital Corporation) **** (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Louis
        Glazer, M.D., Ph.G





(1)
      the
      accompanying Form 10-K/A report for the period ending December 31, 2004 as
      filed
      with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.


Date: June 8, 2006
            
            /s/ Louis Glazer, M.D., Ph.GLouis
                Glazer, M.D., Ph.GChief
                Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Patient Safety
      Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 21 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
EUGENE C. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. DAVID MCKUNE, Warden, Lansing KS; (FNU) BARKLEY, Case Worker & Unit Team Manager; JOHN COOLING, Chiefs Records Officer, Defendants - Appellees. No. 03-3246 (D.C. No. 02-CV-3005-CM, 280 F.Supp.2d 1250) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. ** Plaintiff-Appellant Mr. Young, a pro se state priso ner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 19 83. R. Doc. 49, Young v. McKune , 280 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Kan. 2003). The parties are familiar with the- 2 -

facts and we need not restate them here. Suffice i t to say that Mr. Young alleged that his former lawyer and various Kansas state off icials violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Ex Post Facto Clause by miscalculating his sentence un der a newly amended Kansas Administrative Regulation, Kan. Admin. Regs. 44-6-1 36. R. Doc. 1, at 3-4. We review a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6 ) de novo. Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc. , 336 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003). This courthas thoroughly examined Mr. Young’s appellate brief, the district court’s memorandum and order, and the entire record on appeal. For substa ntially those reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum and order dated Jul y 30, 2003, R. Doc. 49, we affirm the dismissal of his claims.
Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
<Page>


                          [FORM OF FACE OF CERTIFICATE]



                 Organized Under the Laws of the State of Kansas


                                                           CLASS A CAPITAL UNITS

A-

                          WESTERN PLAINS ENERGY, L.L.C.

THIS CERTIFIES THAT___________________________ IS THE OWNER AND REGISTERED
HOLDER OF_____________________________ CLASS A CAPITAL UNITS

                        in Western Plains Energy, L.L.C.

TRANSFERABLE ONLY ON THE BOOKS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY THE HOLDER
HEREOF IN PERSON OR BY DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS
CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED.

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE SAID LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY HAS CAUSED
              THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE SIGNED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS THIS
              ____ DAY OF _________ , 200__.



         ---------------------------            ---------------------------
                  SECRETARY                              PRESIDENT


<Page>





                        [FORM OF REVERSE OF CERTIFICATE]

             The sale and transfer of the Capital Units represented
             by this Certificate are restricted by, and subject to,
             the provisions of the Operating Agreement of Western
             Plains Energy, L.L.C. The Operating Agreement provides,
             among other things, that no sale, assignment, transfer,
             gift, exchange or other disposition of these Capital
             Units is valid except as specifically provided for in
             the Operating Agreement. Copies of the Operating
             Agreement and instructions for transfer, sale or other
             disposition of these Capital Units are available for
             inspection at the Company's principal office.




FOR VALUE RECEIVED __________ HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER
UNTO __________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________ CAPITAL UNITS REPRESENTED
BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE, AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT
__________________ ____________________________________________________ ATTORNEY
TO TRANSFER THE SAID CAPITAL UNITS ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN NAMED LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

DATED         ____________________, 20____   __________________________________

IN PRESENCE OF ________________________________________________________________

NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
****EXHIBIT 32.2****

 

****Certificationof Periodic Financial Report****

****Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350****

 

Forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Dannette Boyd, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Integrated Management Information, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 

(i)                   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  November 12, 2009           |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  Dannette Boyd                      |   |
| Dannette  Boyd, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----