alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN CLIFFORD SIMMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CR-05-00001)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Graham Beers, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney,

Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Morgan Eugene Scott, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Clifford Simms appeals a decision of the district court

ordering him detained pending trial. We have jurisdiction to

review the district court order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291

(West 1993). See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3145(c) (West 2000). Finding that

the record supports detention pending trial, we affirm.

Under normal circumstances, we review a district court

detention order for clear error. See United States v. Clark, 865

F.2d 1433, 1437 (4th Cir. 1989) (en banc); United States v.

Williams, 753 F.2d 329, 333 (4th Cir. 1985). Here, however, the

form used by the district court in reporting its reasons for

ordering detention recited an incorrect legal standard. The Bail

Reform Act requires that “clear and convincing evidence” support

the district court conclusion that no conditions other than

detention will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and

the community. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3142(f)(2) (West 2000). But the form

used by the district court here indicated that its findings were

based only on the preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we

do not afford the usual deference to the district court conclusion

that releasing Simms would pose a threat to the community. See

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1643, 48 F.3d 125, 128 (4th Cir.

1995) (“[T]he clearly erroneous rule does not protect findings made

on the basis of the application of incorrect legal standards.”

(internal quotation marks omitted)).
3

Nevertheless, based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3142(g) (West 2000) and our own review of the facts as found by

the district court, we conclude that the detention order should be

affirmed. The district court found that Simms has a substantial

criminal history that includes convictions for violent crimes and

a track record of retaliating against those who have reported him

to authorities. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3142(g)(3)(A). Simms also

conceded that the weight of the Government’s evidence against him

in the instant case is considerable. See id. § 3142(g)(2).

However, we instruct the district court to correct the error in the

form it uses to report its findings in future cases.

AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**

Eon. B. T. Walter8 County Auditor Smlth.County Tyler, Texas Dear Sir: OpinionNo. ORet Does Art. oonuuiesione

Thle Depa your request ved and oonsldemd ate stated questions. 8 Department,

written tornby Oeneral, inal Mstrlot Attorpaears upon the above h a oopy of Opinion
ii36d~CiVil

atatutseoi Temm, Ia@, ie a psrmisrivestatute The aotioa of the oomliaation $0 made The 0ommie~loner6* flourt*s

action subjsotto review.
on No. O-1500 also defines the tern *paupsF. sting that this eatfsfaotorily answerayour inquiry,end w%th bestwgardm, we ara Very truly your8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIGGETT
GROUP, INC. FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000887021
<NAME> LIGGETT GROUP INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,102
<INVENTORY>                                     42,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,973
<PP&E>                                          47,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,454
<BONDS>                                        107,280
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (178,660)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,786
<SALES>                                        144,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,443
<CGS>                                           66,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     18
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 18
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        18
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 612 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 65
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 612

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2015

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Cruz) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                              May 4, 2015

               Reported by Mr. Inhofe, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
                                                        Calendar No. 65

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 612

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 4, 2015

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Maria Graca THOMAS, Guardian of John Desouza Thomas v. TRAWLER RED JACKET, Inc.

Civ. A. No. 53-883.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

Nov. 16, 1954.

Hyman K. Mintz, Boston, Mass., Max Kabatzniek, Marvin *N.*Geller and Kabatzniek, Stern & Gesmer, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Thomas H. Walsh, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

ALDRICH, District Judge.

The question arises as to whether I should order the defendant to produce copies of statements taken by investigators employed by defendant’s counsel. The prohibition of the Hickman case is not an absolute one even as to the “work product” of the lawyer himself. The matter is merely one of the relevant fac*350tors. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451; Bifferato v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 11 F.R.D. 44. In this ease the plaintiff suggests that two years delay in bringing the action was caused by the interference of a non-lawyer who originally sought to handle the matter, and that this delay has impaired counsel’s making an adequate investigation.

As against this, defendant says that its own investigation was not made contemporaneously, and that it has already furnished the plaintiff with the names of all persons from whom it obtained statements. Defendant further says that all of these witnesses are equally available to the plaintiff.

Under these circumstances I shall not order the production of the statements at this time. If, however, plaintiff’s counsel makes an affidavit to the effect that any witness is unable because of loss of memory now to give him a statement I will order the production of a statement taken by the defendant if close in time to the original occurrence. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Julian, D.C.Del., 10 F.R.D. 452.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-643
In Re: CHARLIE M. TAYLOR, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-706-5-F) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie M. Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charlie Taylor brought this mandamus petition seeking an order directing the district court to render a decision on his motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because we find that the delay to date has not been excessive, we deny mandamus relief. Thedenial is without prejudice to Taylor's right to file a new petition if the district court does not take expedient action. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
(logo)ncb       

National Cooperative Bank

 

2011 Crystal Drive

Suite, 800

Arlington, VA 22202 

 

 

# February 6, 2018

 

RBSCommercial Funding, Inc. as Depositor

600Washington Blvd.

Stamford,CT 06901

 

RE:     Annual Statement as to Compliance

           WFRBS 2013 C13

 

DearSir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreemententered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C13, as an authorized officer of NationalCooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “Co-op Special Servicer”), Ihereby certify that:

 

a.       Areview of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the precedingcalendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Poolingand Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.      To thebest of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special Servicer hasfulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

Pleasenote that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover onor before March 31, 2018.

 

 

Bestregards,

/s/Karyn Mann

KarynMann

SeniorVice President, Investor Compliance

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2004 (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Jerry V. Noyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.


/s/      Jerry V. Noyce


Jerry V. Noyce
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2004
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor 

550 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2013, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE   LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS Series 2013-C14 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

  

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

  

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far

  |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
No. 1125.

#### Frier *v.*Federal Crop Insurance Corp.

May 27, 1946.

*Eugene DeBogory*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Mc-Grath, Assistant Attorney General Sonnett, Paul A. Sweeney*and *M. M. Reuser*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### ADMINISTRACION NACIONAL DE TELECOMUNICACIONES (“ANTEL”), petitioner, v. NEW VALLEY CORPORATION.

No. 96-1467.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 12, 1997.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
August 2023 OMB #1220-0189

Respondent Reference Guide

Occupational Requirement Survey (ORS)

Overview 

ORS captures durations for some physical demands and environmental conditions based on the ranges below:

Duration Category Overall Range 8-Hour Day 40-Hour Week

Seldom Up to 2% Less than 10 minutes Less than 45 minutes

Occasionally 2% up to 1/3 10 minutes up to 2 1/2 hours 45 minutes up to 13 hours

Frequently 1/3 up to 2/3 2 1/2 hours up to 5 1/2 hours 13 hours up to 3 1/2 days

Constantly 2/3 or more 5 1/2 hours or more 3 1/2 days or more

For each of the selected jobs, please provide the following information:

Job Information 

• The number of full-time and part-time workers

• The typical or average work schedule (e.g., 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week)

• The below hiring requirements, when applicable:

o Educational requirements (e.g., high school diploma, college degree)

o Other special training requirements (e.g., certificates, licenses, vocational training)

o Related, professional work experience 

Job Function and Tasks 

• What are the most important things this job does for your organization?

• What is the purpose of this job?

• What do workers in this job do in a regular day?

Supervisory Information 

• Does this job supervise anyone?

• Is their supervisor in the area where they typically work?

• How does their supervisor check the quality of their work?

Cognitive Demands 

• How fast work is performed?

• How often must this job verbally interact with others?

• How closely the job is supervised?
Physical Demands 

Pushing/Pulling – Do workers push or pull anything that requires a significant amount of force?

Reaching/Manipulation – Do any tasks require gross manipulation (e.g., seizing, holding, grasping, turning, or otherwise 

working with the hand)?

Do any of tasks require fine manipulation? Fine manipulation includes touching, picking, pinching, keyboarding, or 

otherwise working primarily with fingers rather than with the whole hand or arm, as in gross manipulation.

Postural – Do any tasks requires workers to use low postures (e.g., stooping, crouching, kneeling, or crawling)?

Environmental Conditions 

Do workers encounter any of the following while performing the job?

• Outdoors

• Extreme Heat (non-weather 

related)

• Extreme Cold (non-weather 

related)

• Wetness

• Humidity

• Heavy Vibration

• Hazardous Contaminants*

• Proximity to Moving 

Mechanical Parts*

• High, Exposed Places*

• Noise Intensity Level*

*Is personal protective equipment (PPE) used (e.g., ear plugs, hearing protection, safety harnesses)?
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
capacity as an officer of e.Digital Corporation (the "Company"), that, to his or
her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:
February 3, 2011





/s/ ALFRED H. FALKAlfred
      H. Falk,President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





Date:
February 3, 2011





/s/ MARDEE HARING-LAYTONMarDee
      Haring-LaytonPrincipal
      Accounting Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
#### Melvin Kent SHOEMATE *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-1209

965 S.W.2d 779

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 26, 1998

*James Steven Dunham,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

On October 9, 1997, appellant, Melvin Kent Shoemate, by his attorney, James Steven Dunham, submitted a motion to file a belated appeal from his rape conviction. Shoe-mate contends that his trial counsel, L. Gray Dellinger, failed to timely file, within thirty days of the.entry of judgment, a notice of appeal from Shoemate’s conviction. In the absence of an affidavit *436from Mr. Dellinger admitting negligence, we remanded the matter to the trial court for the purpose of settling the record and determining if the appellant had requested that Dellinger file a notice of appeal. On March 5, 1998, the supreme court clerk received a supplemental record on remand, and on March 12, 1998, Shoemate resubmitted his motion for a belated appeal.

After reviewing the evidence, the trial court concluded, in its order settling the record, that Shoemate did not request Dellinger to file a notice of appeal. Specifically, the trial court noted that Shoemate’s and Dellinger’s testimony indicated that they did not have the immediate opportunity to discuss the matter of filing an appeal because it was late in the evening following the jury’s verdict and court’s sentencing, and Shoemate was transported to jail and, then, to the Department of Correction within a week after his sentencing. Subsequently, Dellinger met with Mr. Larry Kissee, another attorney, and with Shoemate’s wife, and Shoemate’s mother to discuss the possibility of Mr. Kissee’s pursuing an appeal. Following that discussion, no decision was reached regarding an appeal.

During a telephone conference on May 19, 1997, Dellinger, Kissee, and the appellant discussed the potential consequences of an appeal, including the possibility of a successful appeal, which could result in a new trial, a conviction, and a possible punishment of forty years to life in prison. Mr. Kissee testified that Shoemate did not want to take the chance of being sentenced to life in prison and that he had no doubt that Shoemate did not want to appeal.

Although Shoemate disputed the testimony regarding his desire to file an appeal, the trial court found Kissee’s and Del-linger’s testimony regarding the telephone conference more credible. Additionally, the trial court acknowledged that, following the telephone conference, Shoemate failed to contact Dellinger by phone or letter prior to the appeal deadline. In light of the trial court’s findings of fact, particularly that the appellant failed to request that his attorney file a notice of appeal on his behalf, we deny the appellant’s motion for a belated appeal.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350,As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to thebest of my knowledge, Amendment No.1 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September30, 2004 of Graphic Packaging Corporation (the ‘‘Company’’) filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|   | /s/ JOHN T.  BALDWIN                                       |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: John.  T. Baldwin                                    |
|   | Title:  Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Date: August  9, 2005                                      |

 

----