alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2059

BERTHA R. LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant - Appellee, and HERSHEL GOBER, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-851-7) Submitted: December 17, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Bertha R. Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Bertha Ruth Lawson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on her claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-797 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lawson v. Principi , No. CA-00-851-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2001). 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
# laucnty91

&8Page &P of &N
[No. 23383-9-III.

Division Three.

October 20, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Kenneth A. Shockley, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 03-1-01285-9, Jerome J. Leveque, J., entered August 19, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Kato, C.J., and Brown, J.
# laucnty00

&8Page &P of &N
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50726

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN MICHAEL CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-26-1

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

In July 2006, John Michael Clark, federal prisoner # 57752-180, was

convicted by guilty plea of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and

being a felon in possession of a firearm. He now appeals pro se from the district

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based

upon the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. In that

denial, the district court noted that Clark could not benefit from the crack

cocaine amendments because his base offense level would have remained the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 08-50726 Document: 00511275397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
No. 08-50726

same even if based solely upon the amount of methamphetamine that was

attributed to him.

On appeal, Clark argues that his sentence should have been based solely

upon crack cocaine and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him

based upon any other controlled substance. He also asserts that the district

court violated Amendment 715 to the Sentencing Guidelines by failing to show

how it calculated the amount of crack cocaine attributable to him when

considering his § 3582(c)(2) motion. These arguments lack merit. Moreover,

Clark cannot utilize a § 3582(c)(2) motion to challenge his original sentence. See

United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995).

Examination of the record reveals that the district court correctly

concluded that Clark could not benefit from the crack cocaine amendments. The

district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying Clark’s instant

motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 08-50726 Document: 00511275397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| DATE:  | **   January 16,  2009** |   | BY:                                   |             /s/**Sheldon  Hoffman** |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                         |   | Sheldon Hoffman                       |
|   |                                         |   | Chief Executive Officer  and Director |
|   |                                         |   |                                  |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky L. Vallance, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 486]

Lahtinen, J.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment charging one count of sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree. Under the terms of the deal, he waived his right to appeal and received a prison sentence of 2 to 4 years. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea, which survives the waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Lee,*34 AD3d 982, 982 [2006]), was not preserved for our review since he failed to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Scott,*31 AD3d 816, 817 [2006]). In any event, review of the plea allocution establishes that it was entered into knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily *(see People v Mahar,*12 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]). Defendant’s outburst following the statements of two of the young victims at sentencing, during which he asserted they were lying, does not provide a basis to vacate the plea in the absence of a motion for such relief or a clear protestation of innocence *(see People v Wagoner,*30 AD3d 629, 630 [2006]).

*918We find no merit in defendant’s argument regarding his waiver of his right to appeal. That right was explained during the allocution as a separate and distinct right which was being waived as part of the plea bargain *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Moreover, defendant signed a detailed written waiver of that right *(see People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; *see People v Wright,*34 AD3d 940, 940 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 886 [2007]).

Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal precludes his challenge to County Court’s suppression ruling, as well as his contention regarding whether he received the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Scott,*31 AD3d at 817), except as to whether his counsel’s conduct impacted the voluntariness of his plea *(see People v Crudup,*45 AD3d 1111, 1111 [2007]). And, as to such issue, the record reflects that he received meaningful representation.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
ex10_10.htm








EXHIBIT 10.13







ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC.







SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION







In 2012, none of our directors were employees of the Company except for (i) Laurie A. Bebo, who served as our President and Chief Executive Officer until May 29, 2012, and (ii) Charles H. Roadman II, M.D., who was appointed as our interim President and Chief Executive Officer on May 29, 2012.  Ms. Bebo did not receive any compensation for her service as a director and was not nominated for reelection at our reconvened annual meeting on July 2, 2012.  In recognition of Dr. Roadman’s assumption of the interim President and Chief Executive Officer roles and expanded responsibilities, in addition to continuing to receive director compensation at the same rate as our non-employee directors, Dr. Roadman receives a cash payment of $2,000 per work day, use of a leased car (at a cost to the Company of $1,735 per month) and use of a furnished apartment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (at a cost to the Company of $5,655 per month).  All non-employee directors and Dr. Roadman are paid an annual retainer of $20,000 per year, a fee of $2,500 for each Board or committee meeting they attend in person, and $500 for each Board or committee meeting they attend telephonically.  In addition, the annual retainer for the Board chairman is $75,000 and the annual retainer for the vice chairmen is $50,000.  The annual retainer for the chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Nomination and Governance Committee is an additional $15,000 and the annual retainer for the Executive Committee chair is an additional $10,000.  No tandem stock options/stock appreciation rights options were granted to non-employee directors or Dr. Roadman in 2012.  10,000, 10,000 and 8,000 tandem stock options/stock appreciation rights were awarded to each non-employee director on May 2, 2011, May 3, 2010 and April 30, 2009, respectively, with exercise prices of $17.49, $8.28 and $16.05, respectively.  Non-employee directors and Dr. Roadman may receive yearly grants of additional stock-based awards as determined by the full board of directors.  Non-employee directors and Dr. Roadman are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings.
# Fatal heat (thermal) burns, TX

Fatal occupational injuries with nature of heat (thermal) burns, private industry, Texas, 2018 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries with nature of heat (thermal) burns, private industry, Texas, 2018		

Fatal occupational injuries with nature of heat (thermal) burns, private industry, Texas, 2018 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries with nature of heat (thermal) burns, private industry, Texas, 2018		

Page &P
# 16QRTL1_00

# image1.png
# table12full01

&8Page &P of &N
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5360 

To authorize grants to establish academies for teachers and students of 

American history and civics, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2004 

Mr. WICKER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To authorize grants to establish academies for teachers and 

students of American history and civics, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American History and 

5 Civics Education Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 5360 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL ACADEMIES FOR TEACHING OF 

2 AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVICS; CONGRES3 SIONAL ACADEMIES FOR STUDENTS OF 

4 AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVICS. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Education 

6 (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may award 

7 grants, on a competitive basis— 

8 (1) to entities to establish Presidential Acad9 emies for Teaching of American History and Civics 

10 that may offer workshops for both veteran and new 

11 teachers of American history and civics; and 

12 (2) to entities to establish Congressional Acad13 emies for Students of American History and Civics. 

14 (b) APPLICATION.—An entity that desires to receive 

15 a grant under subsection (a) shall submit an application 

16 to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and con17 taining such information as the Secretary may require. 

18 (c) DEMONSTRATED EXPERTISE.—The Secretary 

19 shall require that each entity, to be eligible to receive a 

20 grant under this section, demonstrate expertise in histor21 ical methodology or the teaching of history. 

22 (d) AVAILABLE FUNDS.—In awarding grants under 

23 subsection (a), the Secretary may use any funds available 

24 to the Secretary to carry out education programs. 
3 

•HR 5360 IH 

1 SEC. 3. NATIONAL HISTORY DAY PROGRAM. 

2 The Secretary may award grants to the National His3 tory Day Program for the purpose of continuing and ex4 panding its activities to promote the study of history and 

5 improve instruction. 

Æ
#### NYCTL 1998-2 Trust et al., Respondents, v 1985 Jerome Avenue Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[823 NYS2d 12]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered September 6, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the amended judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, holder of a tax lien certificate, obtained a judgment of foreclosure and sale against defendant in January 2002. Shortly thereafter, defendant’s attorney contacted plaintiffs attorney claiming that the tax lien included invalid water/sewer charges. Plaintiffs attorney responded that the tax lien could not be reduced without authorization from the New York City Department of Finance, and that defendant’s attorney should deal directly with that agency and inform plaintiff of the amount of any reduction. More than three years later, in April 2005, pursuant to instructions received a month earlier from the Department of Finance, the tax lien certificate was adjusted by deducting most of the water/sewer charges, plus the interest attributable thereto, and plaintiff brought a motion to amend the judgment of foreclosure and sale accordingly, which was not opposed by defendant. However, because interest continued to accrue on the undisputed charges, mainly property taxes, the total amended judgment was even more than the original judgment. Defendant now seeks to vacate the amended judgment, arguing that the running of interest should have stopped as of the date of the original computation in December 2001. Defendant asserts that the reason it did not oppose plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment was because its sole shareholder and officer passed away in February 2005 and his executor received preliminary letters only a few weeks prior to the motion, and argues that plaintiffs failure to explain why it did not promptly sell the property under the original judgment is a meritorious defense. That delay, however, was not the result of any inaction by plaintiff, but rather defendant’s dealings with the Department of Finance. Plaintiff explains that it did not proceed with the sale because it believed defendant was negotiating with Finance to have the tax lien reduced, and once Finance confirmed the reduction, plaintiff immediately proceeded to recompute the charges and amend the judgment accordingly. Defendant could have avoided most of the interest of which he *429complains had he at least paid the undisputed portion of the judgment *(cfi Matter of County of Fulton v State of New York,*76 NY2d 675, 678-679 [1990]). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Under Contract Nos. 168051 

4500046449 

4500213428 

4500227058 

4500268380 

4500282529 

4500284156 

SNR198099 

SNT014031 

SNT206022 

SNU104032 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60390 

Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq. 

James A. Tucker, Esq. 

R. Locke Bell, Esq. 

Jenner & Block LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

This appeal arises from an administrative contracting officer's (ACO's) final 

decision asserting a government monetary claim based on allegedly unallowable direct 

costs under 11 contracts. The parties jointly request dismissal of this appeal without 

prejudice because the ACO has since withdrawn the final decision due to a lack of 

authority to issue the decision because the contracts at issue were contracts over which 
the ACO had no cognizance. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed from the Board's 

docket without prejudice. 

Dated: 1 March 2016 

~J~R~ Administrative 

~~ Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60390, Appeal of Northrop 

Grumman Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 856

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise

a repayment contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No.1, San Angelo project, Texas, and for other purposes.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 856

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, San Angelo project,

Texas, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 856 EH

1 SECTION 1. TOM GREEN COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IM2 PROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1; REPAYMENT

3 PERIOD EXTENDED.

4 The Secretary of the Interior may revise the repay5 ment contract with the Tom Green County Water Control

6 and Improvement District No. 1 numbered 14–06–500–

7 369, by extending the period authorized for repayment of

8 reimbursable constructions costs of the San Angelo project

9 from 40 years to 50 years.

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-28-1997           DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-30-1997           MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                           8,453                 8,170
<SECURITIES>                         0                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                   11,175                15,405
<ALLOWANCES>                       937                   878
<INVENTORY>                     12,032                10,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                32,596                34,094
<PP&E>                          75,811                63,360
<DEPRECIATION>                  35,140                31,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  80,619                72,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           43,053                39,395
<BONDS>                          9,798                 6,791
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0                     0
<PREFERRED>                          0                     0
<COMMON>                        22,876                24,804
<OTHER-SE>                           0                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    80,619                72,896
<SALES>                         90,925                92,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                92,682                94,391
<CGS>                           82,703                83,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   82,703                83,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    84                    99
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 291                   320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,128)                  (35)
<INCOME-TAX>                       134                   134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,262)                 (169)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0                     0
<CHANGES>                            0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,262)                 (169)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (0.33)                (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (0.33)                (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Social Security Administration

*The Social Security Administration (SSA) is announcing the following information about one of its information collections:*      ( print page 35226)    

## Consent Based Social Security Number Verification Service (CBSV)—0960-0760

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is hereby giving notice that effective October 1, 2009, the transaction fee for SSA's CBSV service will increase to $5.00 per transaction.

CBSV is a fee-based service that provides instant, automated Social Security number (SSN) verification to private businesses and government agencies who obtain a valid, signed consent form from the SSN holder. These parties may only use verification results for the reason that the number holder specifies on the consent form. CBSV can easily handle large volume requests and is currently open for enrollment.

We charge a fee to cover the cost of providing this service. To use CBSV, companies must pay a one-time, non-refundable enrollment fee of $5,000 and a transaction fee per SSN verification request. The transaction fee is presently 56 cents based on our assumption that we would receive 5.7 million SSN verification requests annually. That volume, however, did not materialize, and we now estimate receiving 1 million requests. Effective October 1, 2009, the transaction fee will increase to $5.00 due to significantly fewer requests. Based on the revised estimate of 1 million annual transactions, this adjustment is necessary to recover our costs to develop and operate the system. Periodically, we will recalculate CBSV operational costs, review the number of transactions, and adjust the transaction fee as needed. We will notify subscribers in writing of any change in the transaction fee.

Dated: July 15, 2009.

John Biles,

Reports Clearance Officer,  Center for Reports Clearance,  Social Security Administration.

[FR Doc. E9-17225 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 52 Filed 10/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 313