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UNPUBLISHED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. 99-4708

ERNEST F. COBLE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 99-4713

ERNEST F. COBLE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-99-137)

Submitted: May 31, 2002

Decided: June 20, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Ernest F. Coble, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

In these consolidated appeals, Ernest F. Coble appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment and

from his conviction of attempting to obstruct and impede the administration of the tax laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7212(a) (West

2002).* We conclude, first, that Coble’s motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction patently is meritless;

therefore, the district court properly denied the motion. Second, our

review of the record discloses that the evidence presented by the Government — Coble’s use of an invalid "comptroller warrant" to discharge his tax liability and to receive a substantial tax refund — was

sufficient to sustain Coble’s conviction under § 7212(a). See Glasser

v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942) (providing standard of

review); United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889, 897 (4th Cir. 1998)

(defining the elements of a § 7212(a) offense and affirming a conviction under that section). We also have reviewed all of Coble’s claims

raised in his informal briefs and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Coble’s motion to dismiss the

indictment and affirm his conviction. In light of this disposition, we

also deny Coble’s motion entitled "Emergency Petition for Administrative Review." 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

*The facts underlying Coble’s conviction are provided in our prior

opinion, in which we reversed Coble’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Coble, No. 00-4247 (4th Cir. April 27, 2001)

(unpublished). 

2 UNITED STATES v. COBLE
# Productivity and Costs by Industry: Manufacturing and Mining Industries

The Productivity and Costs by Industry: Manufacturing Industries release presents data on labor productivity and unit labor costs for detailed industries in the manufacturing sector. Labor productivity describes the relationship between output and the labor time involved in production. Unit labor costs relate total labor costs to total output. This release is issued annually. For more information, visit the Productivity home page at www.bls.gov/productivity/.

- Productivity falls in 63 of 91 manufacturing and mining industries in 2023
- Productivity falls in 69 of 91 manufacturing and mining industries in 2022
- Productivity rises in 51 of 91 manufacturing and mining industries in 2021
- Productivity rises in 42 of 90 manufacturing and mining industries in 2020
- Productivity declines in 58 of 90 detailed manufacturing and mining industries in 2019
- Productivity declines in 69 of 90 detailed manufacturing and mining industries in 2018
- Productivity declines in 54 of 90 detailed manufacturing and mining industries in 2017
- Productivity rises in 31 of 90 NAICS 4-digit manufacturing and mining industries in 2016
- Productivity rises in 49% of manufacturing and mining industries in 2015
- Productivity rose in 77% of detailed manufacturing and mining industries covered in 2014
- Productivity rose in 54% of detailed manufacturing industries covered in 2012
- Productivity rose in 63% of detailed manufacturing industries in 2011
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-686V 

Filed: August 16, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

CANDY GLASCOCK, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

v. * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis 

 * (“Tdap”); Shoulder Injury Related 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Michael McLaren, Black McLaren, et al., PC, Memphis, TN, for petitioner. 

Lara Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On June 10, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that following an April 13, 2015 tetanus-diphtheria-acellular 

pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On August 16, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent agreed that petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the 

Tdap vaccination she received on April 13, 2015 Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees 

that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine 

Act. Id.

 

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 with 

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). 
2

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
#### ALLEN v. RIVER TERMINAL RY. CO.

Civil No. 27112.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

May 23, 1950.

Clinton J. Wall, Youngstown, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Luther Day, Earl W. LeFever, Arthur J. Gentholts, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a wrongful death action now before the Court for consideration of defendant’s objections to certain interrogatories.

The objections to Interrogatories 8, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 20 must be sustained. Documents and copies thereof cannot be ob*395tained by use of Rule 33, Fed.Rules Civ. Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. Plaintiff must first satisfy the stricter requirements of Rule 34 before this Court can order production.

Interrogatory No. 10 asks whether any reports were made by defendant to the Interstate Commerce Commission, any agency of Ohio, or others. Defendant claims that the term “or others” is so comprehensive that it would include reports made by defendant to its own counsel which reports are privileged. Perhaps the contents of such reports to counsel are privileged but I do not believe the privilege extends to the fact that reports were made. Defendant should give plaintiff the names of the others to whom reports were made. This ruling is not a finding that the report must be produced, and the consideration of privilege, if any, must await plaintiff’s motion under Rule 34.

Interrogatory No. 19 asks for the contents of reports made by physicians to defendant. The rule that documents may not be discovered by use of Rule 33 has an exception in permitting the discovery of contents of doctors’ reports by use of Rule 33.

The objections will be sustained with the one exception noted above.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              28,207
<SECURITIES>                                         1,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    83,010
<PP&E>                                              89,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                      23,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     176,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               67,306
<BONDS>                                             50,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              1
<COMMON>                                               108
<OTHER-SE>                                          41,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       176,945
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   101,058
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       89,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (3,404)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     13,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 13,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        13,265
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.78
        

</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00213-CR

IN RE THOMAS BENSON TAYLOR

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

JOHN E. NEILL

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed July 24, 2019

[OT06]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: MARTIN JOSEPH BODO,

Appellant

______________________ 

2022-1244

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/691,433.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DONALD E. SCHREIBER, Law Offices of Donald E. 

Schreiber, Kings Beach, CA, argued for appellant.

 MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by 

KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON,

FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Case: 22-1244 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2022
 PER CURIAM (PROST, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

December 8, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1244 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-11182 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jessica Roxanna Wheeler, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:20-CR-89-1 

Before King, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jessica Roxanna 

Wheeler has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Wheeler has not filed a response. We have 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 11, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-11182 Document: 00516388645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2022
No. 21-11182 

2 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2. 

Case: 21-11182 Document: 00516388645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2022
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 659

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT

To amend section 242 of the National Housing Act regarding 

the requirements for mortgage insurance under such Act 

for hospitals.

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

HR 659 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hospital Mortgage In3 surance Act of 2003’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING NEED AND FEASI5 BILITY FOR HOSPITALS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 242(d) 

7 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–7) is 

8 amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(4)(A) The Secretary shall require satisfactory evi10 dence that the hospital will be located in a State or polit11 ical subdivision of a State with reasonable minimum 

12 standards of licensure and methods of operation for hos13 pitals and satisfactory assurance that such standards will 

14 be applied and enforced with respect to the hospital. 

15 ‘‘(B) The Secretary shall establish the means for de16 termining need and feasibility for the hospital. If the State 

17 has an official procedure for determining need for hos18 pitals, the Secretary shall also require that such procedure 

19 be followed before the application for insurance is sub20 mitted, and the application shall document that need has 

21 also been established under that procedure.’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

24 this subsection (a) shall take effect and apply as of 

25 the date of the enactment of this Act. 
3

HR 659 RFS 

1 (2) EFFECT OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY.—

2 Any authority of the Secretary of Housing and 

3 Urban Development to issue regulations to carry out 

4 the amendment made by subsection (a) may not be 

5 construed to affect the effectiveness or applicability 

6 of such amendment under paragraph (1) of this sub7 section.

Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 542

AN ACT

To repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by

the United States when certain lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by PublicLaw 102–562.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 542

AN ACT

To repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the

United States when certain lands in Livingston Parish,

Louisiana, were conveyed by Public Law 102–562.

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

•HR 542 EH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESERVATION OF MINERAL

2 RIGHTS, LIVINGSTON PARISH, LOUISIANA.

3 Section 102 of Public Law 102–562 (106 Stat. 4234)

4 is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’;

6 (2) by striking ‘‘and subject to the reservation

7 in subsection (b),’’; and

8 (3) by striking subsection (b).

9 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT.

10 The Secretary of the Interior shall execute the legal

11 instruments necessary to effectuate the amendment made

12 by subsection (a)(3) of section 1.

Passed the House of Representatives October 20,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Mark
Clancy, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small business
issuer’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
  April 4, 2005/s/ Mark ClancyName: Mark ClancyTitle: Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive and Financial Officer)
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURTOFCRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

^f^,x ^sJqccv^^

1/6/2015 fe» \a''A^ &c . ENDERLIN, EUGENE DALE JR. \Tr|Ct. No. 1114973-A WR-82,683-02

On this day, the application for<11^07^Writ^of Habeas Corpus has been received

and presented to the Court. <^t7^::;&/;:''' ^2^ Abel Acosta, Clerk

EUGENEDALE ENDERLIN JR.

MM«M&- TDC # 1490997
To the Board of Directors of
Quantum Companies, Inc.
(A Development Stage Company)


             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Quantum
Companies, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, and for the period of October
15, 1999 (inception) to December 31, 2004. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United Stated). These standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the
years then ended, and for the period of December 30, 1999 (inception) to
December 31, 2004, in conformity with US generally accepted accounting
principles.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the
Company will continue as a going concern. Because of the Company's current
status and limited operations there is substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to its current status
are also described in Note 3. The financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


----------------------------
Armando C. Ibarra, CPA

Chula Vista, Ca.
March 18, 2005