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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 654 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 654

To exempt certain class A CDL drivers from the requirement to obtain a 
hazardous material endorsement while operating a service vehicle with a 
  fuel tank containing 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) or less of diesel 
                                 fuel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 2015

 Mr. Roberts (for himself, Ms. Heitkamp, and Mr. Moran) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exempt certain class A CDL drivers from the requirement to obtain a 
hazardous material endorsement while operating a service vehicle with a 
  fuel tank containing 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) or less of diesel 
                                 fuel.

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

SECTION 1. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ENDORSEMENT EXEMPTION.

    (a) Exclusion.--Section 5117(d)(1) of title 49, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) a service vehicle carrying diesel fuel in 
                quantities of 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) or less that 
                is--
                            ``(i) driven by a class A commercial 
                        driver's license holder who is a custom 
                        harvester, an agricultural retailer, an 
                        agricultural business employee, an agricultural 
                        cooperative employee, or an agricultural 
                        producer; and
                            ``(ii) clearly marked with a placard 
                        reading `Diesel Fuel'.''.
    (b) Exemption.--Section 31315(b) of title 49, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) Hazardous materials endorsement exemption.--The 
        Secretary shall exempt all class A commercial driver's license 
        holders who are custom harvesters, agricultural retailers, 
        agricultural business employees, agricultural cooperative 
        employees, or agricultural producers from the requirement to 
        obtain a hazardous material endorsement under part 383 of title 
        49, Code of Federal Regulations, while operating a service 
        vehicle carrying diesel fuel in quantities of 3,785 liters 
        (1,000 gallons) or less if the tank containing such fuel is 
        clearly marked with a placard reading `Diesel Fuel'.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6971

PERRY FERNESE WESLEY, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VANESSA P. ADAMS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-732-3)

Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Perry Fernese Wesley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Perry Fernese Wesley, Sr., appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his action requesting a temporary restraining

order or injunctive relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Wesley that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Wesley failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Wesley has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
- 3 -

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
#### Herbert CHAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; William L. Osteen, Judge; State of North Carolina; Michael T.W. Bell, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 07-7355.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Herbert Chavis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Chavis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders construing his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying the petition and Chavis’ motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chavis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Workers 65 and over by work schedule, 1977-2007


        Percent distribution

Year	Usually work	Usually work
	full-time	part-time

1977	   48.7		    51.3
1978	   48.1		    51.9
1979	   49.2		    50.8
1980	   49.0		    51.0
1981	   48.9		    51.1
1982	   48.4		    51.6
1983	   48.7		    51.3
1984	   49.3		    50.7
1985	   48.5		    51.5
1986	   47.7		    52.3
1987	   48.6		    51.3
1988	   49.3		    50.8
1989	   48.9		    51.1
1990	   48.5		    51.5
1991	   47.4		    52.6
1992	   47.9		    52.1
1993	   47.4		    52.5
1994	   45.4		    54.6
1995	   43.7		    56.3
1996	   45.6		    54.4
1997	   47.0		    53.0
1998	   46.0		    54.0
1999	   46.3		    53.7
2000	   48.8		    51.2
2001	   49.9		    50.1
2002	   52.2		    47.8
2003	   53.5		    46.5
2004	   53.3		    46.7
2005	   54.0		    46.0
2006	   55.6		    44.4
2007	   56.3		    43.7
|Exhibit 99.3


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of e.Digital Corporation (the Company) for the quarter
ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company each 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
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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: November 14, 2002
|-----------------------

| |  | Alfred H. Falk, Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------

| |  | Ran
Furman, Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------

|
|
**Exhibit 34.8**

**armanino**

REPORT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Board of Directors 

Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. and NRC Group, Inc. 

San Francisco,California 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report of Management on Assessment of Compliance with SECRegulation AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013, that Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. and NRC Group, Inc. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) of the Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB, for the Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities platform (the “Platform”), as defined in management’s assertion, except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii) and (iii), which the Companyhas determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to selectedtransactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013, for the Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 

February 27, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40565-40566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF625


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
Groundfish Plan Teams will meet September 12 through September 15, 
2017.

[[Page 40566]]


DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 12 to Friday, 
September 15, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science 
Center Traynor Room 2076 and NMML Room 2079, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 
Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-
2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Stram or Jim Armstrong, Council 
staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda

Tuesday, September 12 to Friday September 15, 2017

    The Plan Teams will review the preliminary stock assessments for 
Groundfish and receive reports including but not limited to: 2017 
Survey Estimates, CIE Reviews for GOA Pollock and BSAI Flatfish, and 
the Economic Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE).
    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be 
posted at http://www.npfmc.org.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 
at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-18059 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                              EQUITRAC CORPORATION

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                    (in thousands, except earnings per share)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     AUGUST 31,            AUGUST 31,
                                                 ----------------      ----------------
                                                  1997       1996      1997        1996
                                                 -----      -----      -----      -----
<S>                                              <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>  
Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding                           3,482      3,401      3,477      3,396

Common share equivalents arising from
    dilutive options                               246        155        231        139
                                                 -----      -----      -----      -----
                                                 3,728      3,556      3,708      3,535
                                                 =====      =====      =====      =====

Earnings per share                               $0.20      $0.18      $0.39      $0.35
                                                 =====      =====      =====      =====


</TABLE>
No. 1203.

#### Rymarkiewicz *v.*Pittsburgh Steamship Co.

June 3, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

*859
      *William L. Standard*for petitioner.

*Walker H. Nye*and *Arnold F. Bunge*for respondent.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10334.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 24, 2008.

Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sequoyah Perry, Jr., Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Efrain Rios appeals his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Rios argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the conspiracy involved an amount of cocaine in excess of five kilograms. Because Rios failed to move for a judgment of acquittal, his sufficiency challenge is reviewed only for a manifest miscarriage of justice. *United States v. Avants,*367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir.2004). Such a miscarriage of justice occurs when the record is “devoid of evidence of guilt or the evidence [is] so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” *Id.*

Rios argues that Ana Laura Silva’s testimony did not establish an amount of cocaine attributable to the conspiracy. Although he acknowledges that Silva’s testimony confirmed that she delivered between five and seven kilograms of cocaine, Rios contends that her testimony is opinion testimony and that she has no basis for such an opinion. Silva testified that she carried the drugs on her person on numerous occasions, and she further testified that she transported cocaine in one kilogram amounts. Her testimony did not amount to inadmissible opinion testimony. Rather, she was providing a factual answer to a question as to how much cocaine she had carried on her body. The record is not devoid of evidence as to the amount of cocaine attributable to the conspiracy, and, as such, Rios’s conviction does not constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Heriberto MOYA-MENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40817

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Heriberto Moya-Mena raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *685cert. *denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
----

----

| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated. |

|                                     |   |   |                                    |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                     |   |   |                                    |
|   /s/ Robert A. Whitman             |   |   |   /s/ Stephen D. Young             |
| Robert A. WhitmanChief Executive Officer |   |   | Stephen D. YoungChief Financial Officer |
| Date: July 8, 2010                       |   |   | Date: July 8, 2010                      |
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Bowdring v. McKee et al.

February 6, 2001

Case No. C1000706

BY JUDGE JOHN E. KLOCH

This matter came to be heard upon the defendant McKee’s demurrer for failure to state a claim of breach of contract, fraud, and constructive fraud.

Plaintiff purchased real property from the defendants in 1999. The property is located at 505 Duncan Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia The plaintiff alleges that the defendants did not properly install the sump pump and that the rear addition to the original property has not been issued an occupancy permit. The plaintiff sought damages based on breach of contract, fraud, and constructive fraud.

Virginia follows the common law doctrine of caveat emptor as to sales of real property. See *Watson*v. *Avon Street Center,*226 Va. 614, 618-19, 311 S.E.2d 795 (1984) (citing *Kuczmanski*v. *Gill,*225 Va. 367, 302 S.E.2d 48 (1983)). “If a purchaser is given or secures information as to the condition of property such as would excite the suspicions of a reasonably prudent man, he is then under a duty to ascertain the true condition for himself and cannot rely upon the representations of the vendor.” *Horner*v. *Ahern,*207 Va. 860, 863, 153 S.E.2d 216 (1967). The court in *Armentrout*v. *French,*220 Va. 458, 466, 258 S.E.2d 519 (1979) (quoting *Horner,*207 Va. at 864), however, held that “a very important exception to [caveat emptor] is that the seller ‘must not say or do anything to throw the purchaser off his guard or to divert him from making die inquiries and examination which a prudent man ought to make’.”

The court in *Boykin*v. *Hermitage Realty,*234 Va. 26, 30, 360 S.E.2d 177 (1987), dealt with the issue of whether the doctrine of caveat emptor applies when the buyers have equal access to a document of public record. The court *10held that the doctrine “affords no protection to a seller who makes false representations of a material fact, constituting an inducement to the contract, on which the buyer had a right to rely.” *Id.*(citations omitted).

This Court finds that, with regard to the sump pumps, the alleged misrepresentations occurred subsequent to the home inspection; therefore, the plaintiff was thrown off guard and, thus, was reasonable in relying upon it The Court further finds that plaintiff cannot have a claim for fraud based on the permit deficiencies on the rear addition unless plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false representations with regard to those permits.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court sustains the demurrer as to punitive damages, overrules the demurrer on all counts with regard to the sump pumps, and sustains the demurrer to Counts II and m with regard to the permit deficiencies, with leave to amend. The Plaintiff will have fourteen days from February 7, 2001, to file any amendments to the Motion for Judgment, the Defendant will have fourteen days thereafter to file any responsive pleadings.