alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3991

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Raymond L. White, also known as * Bang, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 13, 2003 Filed: May 22, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. On August 16, 2002, Raymond White plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. At a sentencing hearing on November 8, 2002, he argued that he was a "minor participant" in the conspiracy and requested a reduction in his offense level pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines section2 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

3 Amendment 640 provides a maximum base offense level of 30 for defendants who receive a mitigating role adjustment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual supp. to app. C at 263-64. But that does not alter our analysis in determining, in the first place, whether a defendant is entitled to the adjustment, and the district court correctly noted this point. -2- 3B1.2(b). The district court 2 denied his request and sentenced him to 145 months in prison. White appeals. We affirm. The district court's determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a role reduction is a question of fact to be reviewed for clear error. United States v. Monk , 312 F.3d 389, 390 (8th Cir. 2002). Section 3B1.2(b) provides for a two-level decrease if "the defendant was a minor participant" in criminal activity, and the application notes define a "minor participant" as a defendant "who is less culpable than most other participants." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b) n.5. We have held that a minor participant reduction is inappropriate when the district court bases the offense level only on drug quantities directly attributable to the defendant. United States v. Thurmon , 278 F.3d 790, 792-93 (8th Cir. 2002). The sentence in that circumstance will already reflect the defendant's smaller role in relation to the quantities attributable to the larger conspiracy. Id. at 793. White's argument that the November 1, 2002, amendment to section 3B1.2 overrides this well-established rule is inapposite. 3 White concedes that his sentence was based solely on the amount of cocaine base for which he was directly responsible. We find no clear error and affirm the district court's denial of White's request for a minor participant reduction.-3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51346 Summary Calendar

ELIJAH LANG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-02-CV-258

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Elijah Lang appeals the affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405. He argues that the disability decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was not made under the proper legal standards, that the administrative law judge (ALJ) used improper criteria to assess his credibility, that the magistrate judge erred in its review of the administrativeNo. 03-51346 -2- record, and that the ALJ was required to address whether he could maintain gainful work activity. We hold that the disability determination was supported by substantial evidence and was made under the proper legal standards. See Ripley v. Chater , 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). In so holding, we determine that the record supports the ALJ’s rejection of portions of the treating physician’s evaluation, the ALJ’s determination of Lang’s residual functional capacity, and the ALJ’s characterization of Lang’s allegations of disabling pain as not credible; and we conclude that the ALJ adequately incorporated all of Lang’s disabilities in posing the hypothetical question to the vocational expert. See Boyd v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 698, 707 (5th Cir. 2001); Spellman v. Shalala , 1 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir. 1993); Wren v. Sullivan , 925 F.2d 123, 128-29 (5th Cir. 1991). Lang has not established that any error committed by the magistrate judge constitutes reversible error. This court reviews the Commissioner’s decision for propriety. See Ripley , 67 F.3d at 555. Finally, the evidence did not show that Lang’s ability to maintain employment would be compromised despite his ability to perform employment as an initial matter, and there is no indication that the ALJ did not understand that an ability to maintain employment is inherent in the definition of residual functional capacity. See Dunbar v. Barnhart , 330 F.3d 670, 672No. 03-51346 -3- (5th Cir. 2003). Consequently, the ALJ was not required to make a specific finding with regard to Lang’s ability to maintain employment. See Dunbar , 330 F.3d at 672.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Geron Corporation (the Company) hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | (i)  |  | the accompanying
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended
      March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     
| | (ii) |  | the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.                                                                                                                           



|Dated: April 30,
      2009                 | 
|------------------------------------------- | 
|                                            | 
|/s/
      THOMAS B. OKARMA                  | 
|Thomas B.
      Okarma                      | 
|President and Chief
      Executive Officer | 

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Geron Corporation and
will be retained by Geron Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
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 53 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-175, CP2017-276.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2017-17895 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Amendment No. 1 to the Unified Grocers, Inc. Cash Balance Plan



 Exhibit 10.75.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE 
 UNIFIED GROCERS, INC. 

CASH BALANCE PLAN 
 Unified Grocers, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby amends the above-named plan (the “Plan”), effective as of January 1, 2002, as follows: 

1. The fourth sentence of Section 7.3(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“In the case of a distribution made for a reason other than severance from employment, death, or disability, this provision shall be
applied by substituting ‘five-year period’ for ‘one-year period.’” 
 * * * * * * 

The Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be signed on the date indicated below, to be effective as indicated above.

  

							
		 		 	“Company”
			
		 		 	UNIFIED GROCERS, INC.
				
	Dated: November 29, 2011	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Robert M. Ling, Jr.

				
		 		 	Its:	 	President and General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Drug Guild
Distributors, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                        200,000
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 67,274,000
<ALLOWANCES>                  1,203,000
<INVENTORY>                   29,440,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              97,552,000
<PP&E>                        14,287,000
<DEPRECIATION>                10,956,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                105,974,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         89,696,000
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         2,589,000
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      10,023,000
<OTHER-SE>                    2,596,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  105,974,000
<SALES>                       501,383,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              501,383,000
<CGS>                         475,500,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 14,560,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              10,229,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>              1,430,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            5,494,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (3,807,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (1,543,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,264,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,264,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.24)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18717]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2336-000]


Shoreham Solar Commons LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Shoreham Solar Commons LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 18, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d3b382f3e3213111413182e080d0d120f093d1b180f1e531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88cecddacbc7e6e4e1e6eddbfdf8f8e7fafcc8eeedfaeba6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18717 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 27, 2009 

# Order

February 27, 2009

133725(114)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 133725 v COA: 247039 Wayne CC: 02-005508 RICHARD PERRY BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellee for extension to January 16, 2009 of the time for filing thei r brief is considered and it is GRANTED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2303

BOBBY SAUL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1043-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2William S. Thompson, COOK & COOK, Madison, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Robert W. Flynn, Assistant RegionalCounsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephen M. Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Bobby Saul appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s final decision regarding the onset date of Saul’s disability for determining entitlement to Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)(1994). Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and advisedAppellant 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, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of 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). Appellant has waived appellate review byfailing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent,

v. Nakia Karreim J ohnson, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2018-001355

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal from Kershaw County Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2020-MO-002 Heard January 14, 2020 – Filed January 22, 2020

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

E. Charles Grose Jr., Grose Law Firm, of Greenwood, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Wi lliam M. Blitch Jr., andHeather Savitz Weiss, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted Nakia Johnson's pe tition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Johnson , Op. No. 2018-UP-109 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Mar. 14, 2018). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEAR N, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification of CFO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a  14 and 15d  14 as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Sherry A. Sturman, the Chief Financial Officer of OrthoLogic Corp., certify
that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OrthoLogic Corp.; 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 registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant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 registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: August 9, 2004/s/ Sherry A. Sturman
Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134853 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ROMAN J. BARNWELL (Deceased), and MARY JANE BARNWELL (Spouse), Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 134853 COA: 277195 WCAC: 05-000325 CITY OF PETOSKEY, and MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FUND, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 16, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk