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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7670 ANDREW RIVERA, a/k/a Drew, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-723) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: May 2, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL John D. Delgado, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. John Michael Barton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Andrew Rivera appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion for a reduction of sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We dismiss Rivera's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rivera's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California ,386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the district court erred in its reduction of Rivera's sentence from 220 months to 200 months. Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), we have jurisdiction to entertain [Rivera's] appeal only if his sentence (1) was imposed in violation of law, (2) wasimposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines, (3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range, or (4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Hill , 70 F.3d 321, 323 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a)). Consistent with Congress's intent, jurisdiction under § 3742(a) is narrowly interpreted. See Hill , 70 F.3d at 323-24. After reviewing the district court's order, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that Rivera is unable to demonstrate any of these jurisdictional prerequisites. Pursuant to Anders , this court hasreviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Accordingly, we therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17362]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting 
Cancellation

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act that the meeting of the Geriatrics and 
Gerontology Advisory Committee, previously scheduled to be held at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Conference Room 
630, Washington, DC 20420, on September 18-19, 2017, has been 
cancelled.
    For more information, please contact Alejandra Paulovich, Program 
Analyst, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services at (202) 461-6016 or via 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca8ba6afa0aba4aeb8abe49aabbfa6a5bca3a9a28abcabe4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adecc1c8c7ccc3c9dfcc83fdccd8c1c2dbc4cec5eddbcc83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 11, 2017.
Jelessa M. Burney,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-17362 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAN GAZZANO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY; SEIU

HIGHER EDUCATION WORKERS

LOCAL 2007, SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-15577

D.C. No. 5:12-cv-05742-PSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Paul S. Grewal, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dan Gazzano appeals from the district court’s summary

judgment in favor of his former employer, Stanford University, and his Union,

Local Chapter 2007 of the Service Employees International Union Higher

FILED

MAY 12 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Education Workers. Stanford terminated Gazzano from his job as a

groundskeeper. The termination letter explained that the termination was on

account of a long history of inappropriate and harassing comments, including

racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks about colleagues.

Although the district court dismissed the breach of contract claim against

Stanford on preemption grounds, such a claim may be maintained pursuant to

§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, if the plaintiff is

able to show that the union breached its duty of fair representation. Soremekun v.

Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2007). The Union, however,

investigated Gazzano’s grievance, carried it through three steps of the grievance

procedures and negotiated a settlement, which Gazzano declined to accept. 

Relying on counsel’s evaluation of the case that the arbitration would be

unsuccessful, the Union decided not to proceed to arbitration. In response to the

Union’s motion for summary judgement, Gazzano abandoned the allegations of his

complaint, that the Union had acted out of animus, and attempted to argue a new

theory unsupported by the pleadings. Gazzano failed to establish any breach of the

Union’s duty of fair representation. 

Moreover, the record bears out the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons

Stanford provided in its termination letter. There is no evidence that the reasons

2
for termination were pretextual or that Stanford treated Gazzano more harshly than

it treated other individuals in similar circumstances.

Gazzano’s disability discrimination claim fails for the reasons stated by the

district court.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery to a

period beginning in 2011, corresponding to the time Gazzano’s claims arose. 

AFFIRMED.

3
# national
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DWAYNE ALTWAN LANGFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:07-cr-00013-HMH-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Altwan Langford, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Altwan Langford appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Langford , No. 8:07-cr-00013-HMH-1 (D.S.C. July 27, 2009). 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
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Aerosonic Corporation. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended January 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Douglas Hillman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                    |  |     |  |                                                      
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/    DOUGLAS
HILLMAN                               
|                    |  |     |  | Douglas Hillman President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Air

transportation,

scheduled

Air

transportation,

nonscheduled

Airports, flying

fields, & services

Aircraft and

parts,

manufacturing

Machinery,

equipment, and

supplies,

wholesale trade

Personnel supply

services and

management

and public

relations



	

	

	


	



	

	

	




		

	




CHART. Share of FAA certified and non-FAA certified aircraft mechanics and

service technicians in selected industries

Percent

Air

transportation,

scheduled



	

		
	



			














 	

		
		

! 	

	





"#$
 
%



	


	 
&




	

		
	

		

 
!'"#'(
	 





)




	

*

	


	



		
 

*



 +
 
*


$##	

		
	



		,
$'


	
!

	




,
-"
	



 



	

		
	



			 
 

 
.

	
 
	 /*

	
 
/	
*

 
/

	
/*

	

0 
 
!




/

 
	
/
*


 	
&!


*

 


 
	
*



 	



	*


 

&

!
	


	



		
	

		!




!

*	
*



	 

	

1 

 &

 
!




	


	

		! 

	
 
-


 &

*	


 


!
!
 	


 
	 #-
 

&


	

		


	

		$"
	
"


	

!

	


	




&

!

1 *


!







	



 	



		2



	&


	


	
*



	

		!	
 


!	-$
	

*

	

			

	


&


!

	


	


	



		!

 
	




 	
!	

3


%"
	
!

	
*





&

	



	


		



4






,



!






	





	

		
	

			*



	










	

		


	

		
!
!


"




#


	


	

		
	



			

	


5*


!
!

""
*





$
	

*


!"





-
	


	

			*



	




6 

	
	





 



*

	

		
	

		




.&


	
*



	

		
	

		




*	








,





 



	



		
	

		1*


$
	



	
*




%
	


*

	


$
	













 
	



*


!	


%
	
!

*	




!



	









	



 
	
 


 $$
	







	


	

		'
*

Air

transportation,

nonscheduled

Airports,

flying fields,

and services

Personnel

supply

services and

management

and public

relations

Machinery,

equipment,

and supplies,

wholesale

trade

Aircraft and

parts,

manufacturing

FAA certified

Non-FAA certified
	
	







 !"

	



	



 ! 	" #$%&

#'(!

)' ! * #&#+#,&&&+


 

	



 
 

	


*	


-


	




	*




 
	
*



 	
  

"#
	







	


	

		-
	




*	


%
*

	






 	

*

		
			
 


	


	&*

3	 



	

!3*




0 



! 3	

		
	*

	&

	



	




 	

72)

+

,

	


& 





,		 5
2	

,52 
	

		
	



		&
 
	
	!

*



#		 




1





 '*
		



 
,52

		
,

	

5
7*



2	,		 5*


2	8%$%9	 



 
:5;<=/

*


*-*"-
*.	
/





,52

 

	




372 Aircraft and parts FAA certified 6,920 $20.99

 manufacturing Non-FAA certified 5,190 $17.90

451 Air transportation, FAA certified 62,770 $21.19

 scheduled Non-FAA certified 1,350 $16.60

452 Air transportation, FAA certified 5,790 $20.21

 nonscheduled Non-FAA certified 1,080 $16.67

458 Airports, flying fields, FAA certified 15,360 $17.93

 and services Non-FAA certified 8,030 $14.00

508 Machinery, equipment, FAA certified 2,480 $16.09

 trade Non-FAA certified 280 $12.26

736 Personnel supply services and FAA certified 1,850 $18.72

and management and public relations Non-FAA certified 2,270 $16.80

874

 	
   	
 
  


NOTE: SIC is the industryís 1987 Standard Industrial Classification, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18151]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10111--Mainstreet Bank, Forest Lake, Minnesota

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Mainstreet Bank, Forest Lake, 
Minnesota (``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its receivership for 
said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Mainstreet Bank on 
August 28, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been 
completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance 
with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to 
proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 23, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18151 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### MERRIMAN et al. v. CITIES SERVICE GAS CO. et al.

No. 972.

United States District Court S. D. Missouri, W. D.

March 22, 1951.

John W. Hudson, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Farrington & Curtis and Richard Far-rington, Springfield, Mo.-, for defendants.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The above motions, and suggestions of the parties, have been examined. The affidavits and other data indicate that the defendants and their witnesses are not endangered with respect to their legal demands for the reason that the plaintiffs are solvent.

On the motion to require the joining of Atlas Mutual Insurance Company as a party plaintiff, it appears from an examination of the briefs and a competent document that the plaintiffs did have insurance, and that a part of their claimed loss has been paid. However, it was paid by the insurance company in the way of extending a loan to cover in part said loss. By a document submitted the insurance company quite clearly has authorized the plaintiffs to bring this action and a part recovery, if any, would inure to the benefit of the insurance company. Under such circumstances the plaintiffs are empowered under Rule 17, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28-U.S.C.A., to maintain the action in their names.

Paragraph (a) of said Rule 17 particularly provides that, “a trustee of an express trust” may bring suit in his name without joining the beneficiary. Such are *166the rulings in Missouri, as well as the holdings of the federal courts. See Anthony v. German American Ins. Co. of New York, 48 Mo.App. 65; Still v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, 185 Mo.App. 550, 172 S.W. 625; Byrd v. Bankers’ & Shippers’ Ins. Co., 224 Mo.App. 451, loc. cit. 453, 28 S.W.2d 423, and Dixey v. Federal Compress & Warehouse Co., 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 275; Augusta Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 170 F.2d 199. The act of the insurer in extending a loan is a practice approved by the courts.

It would follow that the several motions above discussed should be and will be overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,196
<SECURITIES>                                     8,490
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,253
<INVENTORY>                                     13,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,019
<PP&E>                                          29,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,418
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,472
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,202)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,734
<SALES>                                         26,424<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,424
<CGS>                                           15,174<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,988)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
<FN>
<F1>Includes revenues from licensing of software and support services.
<F2>Includes costs from licensing of software and support services.
</FN>
        

</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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         August 24, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 52 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-174, CP2017-275.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2017-17894 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### LARSEN v. O’REILLY et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 1, 1951.

Shatter & Shatter, New York City, for plaintiff.

McCarthy & McGrath, New York 'City, for defendant J. R. O’Reilly.

CONGER, District Judge.

Motion to dismiss, complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

A previous action between the same parties and based on the same cause of action was dismissed in this Court on December 20, 1950 for failure to prosecute. On January 16, 1951 a motion made by the plaintiff to restore the action to the calendar was denied.

Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the F.R.C.P. the dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits. The present action, therefore may not be instigated.

Section 23 of the New York Civil Practice Act may not be invoked to aid plaintiff. Even if it does apply by its very terms it does not give plaintiff the right to bring this new action. Loomis v. Girard Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 256 App.Div. 443, 10 N.Y.S.2d 283.

Motion granted.

Settle order.
EX-21

The  following  table  indicates the wholly owned  subsidiaries  of the Company,
their respective states of incorporation and the restaurants operated by each

                                 State of
         Name                    Incorporation      Restaurants
         ----                    -------------      -----------

         Chefs International        Florida         Jack Baker's Lobster Shantys
             Palm Beach, Inc.                           Vero Beach and Jensen
                                                        Beach, Florida

         Hightstown REB, Inc.       New Jersey      Jack Baker's Lobster Shantys
                                                        Pt. Pleasant Beach,
                                                        Toms River and
                                                        Hightstown, New Jersey