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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7554

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK ANTHONY WILLIAMS, a/k/a Michael Nemhardt,

a/k/a Alex Cruz, a/k/a Smiley,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:97-cr-00142-F-3)

Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 21, 2006

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mark Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and his

subsequent motion for reconsideration. 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.

Williams, No. 5:97-cr-00142-F-3 (E.D.N.C. July 21, 2006; Aug. 21,

2006). 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
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21266]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Board 
of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual 
investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.
    Date: November 7, 2017.
    Closed: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, NIH, Johns Hopkins Bayview Campus, Baltimore, MD 21223.
    Contact Person: Joshua Kysiak, Program Specialist, Biomedical 
Research Center, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224, 
443-740-2465, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#761d0f051f171d1c1936181f121758181f1e58111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5deccc6dcd4dedfdaf5dbdcd1d49bdbdcdd9bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)


    Dated: September 28, 2017.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21266 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                        373,865
<SECURITIES>                  0         
<RECEIVABLES>                 127,355          
<ALLOWANCES>                  0        
<INVENTORY>                   228,953          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              889,987
<PP&E>                        8,709,350          
<DEPRECIATION>                4,048,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                6,370,379            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3,848,010     
<BONDS>                       0          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0         
<PREFERRED>                   1,755,486          
<COMMON>                      150,577
<OTHER-SE>                    0         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  6,370,379       
<SALES>                       0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              15,907,538           
<CGS>                         8,892,228    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 17,404,634          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              298,411      
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            133,510           
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,207,434)              
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0                 
<DISCONTINUED>                411,927          
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0          
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,207,434)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.15)  
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I, Gary Herman, certify that:





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; 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: April 20, 2011




/s/ Gary HermanGary HermanChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT 11.1

                          EDUCATIONAL MEDICAL, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE



                                                           Three months        
                                                           ended June 30,      
                                                                1996           
                                                          ---------------      
Primary and fully diluted:
   Weighted average common stock
      outstanding during the period                          5,412,548
   Effect of common stock
      equivalents issued subsequent
      to August 7, 1995 computed in
      accordance with the treasury
      stock method as required by
       the SEC (1)                                              112,000
                                                             ----------
Total                                                         5,524,548
                                                             ==========


Pro forma net income                                         $   59,449
Pro forma net income per
   share of common stock                                     $      .01



     (1)Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting
     Bulletin NO. 83, Common Stock equivalents issued at prices below the
     initial public offering price per share of $10 ("cheap stock") during the
     twelve month period immediately preceeding the initial filing date of the
     Company's Registration Statement for its initial public offering have been
     included as outstanding for all periods presented prior to the initial
     public offering.
#### In the Matter of Yeshiva Gedolah Academy of Beth Aaron Synogogue, Appellant, v City of Long Beach et al., Respondents. 405 Hotel, LLC, Nonparty Respondent.

[988 NYS2d 242]

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the Treasurer of the City of Long Beach to convey certain real property situated in the City of Long Beach to the petitioner/plaintiff and action pursuant to RRAFL article 15 for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that any claims to the subject real property that were adverse to that of the petitioner/plaintiff are extinguished, the petitioner/plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, Jr., J.), entered June 19, 2012, which granted the cross motion of the City of Long Beach and Marion DeRosa, as Treasurer of the City of Long Beach, to *902dismiss the petition/complaint insofar as asserted against them, and dismissed the hybrid proceeding and action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with one bill of costs to the City of Long Beach and Marion DeRosa, as Treasurer of the City of Long Beach, and to the nonparty 405 Hotel, LLC, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by the petitioner/plaintiff.

In order to preserve the status quo pending the determination of this appeal, the petitioner/plaintiff was required to move in this Court pursuant to CPLR 5518 for a preliminary injunction pending appeal, prohibiting the development of the subject real property. Since the petitioner/plaintiff failed to do so, it failed to preserve its rights pending appellate review. In the absence of a preliminary injunction issued pursuant to CPLR 5518, nonparty 405 Hotel, LLC, purchased and redeveloped the subject property, and a hotel is now operated thereon. By virtue of this change in the underlying circumstances, this Court has been prevented “from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy” *(Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn.,*2 NY3d 727, 728-729 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach,*98 NY2d 165, 173 [2002]; *Matter of Raab v Silverstein,*106 AD3d 746 [2013]; *Matter of Papert v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Quogue,*98 AD3d 581, 582-583 [2012]; *Matter of Kowalczyk v Town of Amsterdam Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*95 AD3d 1475, 1477 [2012]).

Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed on the ground that it has been rendered academic, and we do not address the merits of the petitioner/plaintiff s contentions.

Rivera, J.P, Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     I, Billy F. Mitcham, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Mitcham Industries, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2005(the “Report”), filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereofpursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with therequirements of that section.
     I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: May 2, 2005
#### Aleah HOLLAND, Robert J. Musso as the Trustee of the Estate to the plaintiff Aleah Holland, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Office of the Sheriff of the City of New York, Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellees, *19New York City Sheriff Andre Jackson, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Robert Musso, as the Trustee of the Estate to the plaintiff Aleah Holland, Trustee.*

No. 10-1842-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 16, 2011.

Michael P. Joseph, of Counsel, Kliegerman & Joseph, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant New York City Sheriff Andre Jackson.

Sharyn Michele Rootenberg, of Counsel (Larry A. Sonnenshein, of Counsel, on the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellees City of New York, Office of the Sheriff of the City of New York.

PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, GUIDO CALABRESI, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.

SUMMARY ORDER

Sheriff Andre Jackson appeals the district court’s March 30, 2010 order granting the municipal parties’ motion for summary judgment on his cross-claim for reimbursement and indemnification of attorney’s fees incurred litigating a civil action in which both the City and Jackson were defendants. He also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment on the same claim.

After reviewing the issues on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned order and opinion.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelvin Clark, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 56]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we reach the same conclusion. Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered a plea of guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment against him. He was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 4V2 to 9 years, which sentence was in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement and the relevant statutory requirements. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of conviction and grant defense counsel’s application to withdraw *(see, People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, *lv denied*67 NY2d 650).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3299 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3299

   To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to apply to 
 retiree-only health plans the extension of dependent health coverage 
  for individuals through 26 years of age provided for by the Patient 
                  Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2011

    Mr. Hinchey (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mr. Clay, Mr. Jackson of 
     Illinois, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Holt) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
  Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and 
Means and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to apply to 
 retiree-only health plans the extension of dependent health coverage 
  for individuals through 26 years of age provided for by the Patient 
                  Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF DEPENDENT HEALTH COVERAGE EXTENSION UNDER 
              PPACA TO RETIREE-ONLY HEALTH PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2714 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300gg-14) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(including a group 
        health plan and health insurance coverage described in 
        subsection (d))'' after ``health insurance coverage''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Retiree-Only Plans.--A group health plan and health insurance 
coverage described in this subsection, with respect to a plan year, is 
a group health plan (and group health insurance coverage offered in 
connection with a group health plan) that on the first day of such plan 
year does not have any participants who are current employees.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) ERISA.--Section 732(a) of the Employee Retirement 
        Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191a(a)) is amended by 
        inserting ``and section 2714 of the Public Health Service Act, 
        as made applicable by section 715'' after ``other than section 
        711''.
            (2) IRC.--Section 9831(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1986 is amended by inserting ``in the case of any such 
        requirements other than section 2714 of the Public Health 
        Service Act, as made applicable by section 9815,'' before ``any 
        group health plan''.
                                 <all>
```
### FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 04/23/99 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3305

D. C. Docket No. 91-11-CV-T-17B

RICHARD B. GOSSARD, JOYCE GOSSARD, BARNEY DEWEES, JOHN DALY, NURSEFINDERS OF SARASOTA, INC., NURSEFINDERS OF ST. PETERSBERG, INC., NURSEFINDERS OF MOBILE, INC. Plaintiff-Appellants,

versus ADIA SERVICES, INC. Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (April 23, 1999) Before TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judge s, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge. BARKETT, Circuit Judge: In this tortious interference acti on, appellants Richard Gossard, Joyce Gossard, Barney Dewees, John Daly, Nursefi nders of Sarasota, Inc., Nursefinders of St. Petersburg, Inc., and Nursefinders of Mobile, Inc. (collectively “Gossard”)2 appeal the district court’s entry of judgm ent as a matter of law in favor of Adia Services, Inc. (“Adia”), notwithstanding th e jury verdict which resolved all the factual issues in favor of Gossard. Th e district court’s order was based on two findings: (1) that Adia did not “induce or otherwise cause” a breach of contract under Florida law, see Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc. , 647 So.2d 812, 814 (Fla.1994) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766 (1977) (defining the tort of “intentional interference with a contract”)), and (2) that the jury’s $2,488,000 compensatory damage award was based on an erroneous legal theory. The facts of this case ar e set out in Gossard v. Adia , 120 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 1997). In that opinion, we concluded that the dispositive question of Florida law was not dictated by the clear and c ontrolling precedent of the Florida Supreme Court. Accordingly, we certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: WHETHER FLORIDA LAW RECOGNIZES A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AGAINST A CORPORATION WHICH PURCHASES AS A SUBSIDIARY A CORPORATION WHICH HAS A PREEXISTING OBLIGATION NOT TO COMPETE AGAINST ITS FRANCHISEE, PLAINTIFF HEREIN, AND SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASES ANOTHER SUBSIDIARY WHICH IS IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH THE FRANCHISEE.

Gossard v. Adia , 120 F.3d 1229, 1231 (11th Cir. 1997).3 The Florida Supreme Court answer ed the certified question in the affirmative. See Gossard v. Adia , (Fla.). Based on this opinion, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and remand this case to the district court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

         The following is a list of the active subsidiaries of the Company as of
December 31, 1999, indicating the jurisdiction of incorporation of each and the
names under which such subsidiaries conduct business. In the case of each
subsidiary which is indented, its immediate parent owns beneficially all of the
voting securities, except New Valley Corporation, of which BGLS Inc. and New
Valley Holdings, Inc. collectively own approximately 55% of such voting
securities.

                 NAME OF SUBSIDIARY              JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
                 ------------------              -----------------------------
            BGLS Inc.                                    Delaware
            Brooke Group Holding Inc.                    Delaware
            Liggett Group Inc.                           Delaware
            Brooke (Overseas) Ltd.                       Delaware
            New Valley Holdings, Inc.                    Delaware
            New Valley Corporation                       Delaware


         Not included above are other subsidiaries which, if considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary,
as such term is defined by Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRANSAMERICAN ENERGY CORPORATION AS OF AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         277,899
<SECURITIES>                                     9,114
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     16,437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               333,441
<PP&E>                                       2,350,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                 741,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,131,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,156
<BONDS>                                      1,769,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,131,439
<SALES>                                        164,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               725,733
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (21,957)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                391,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                   161,669
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            194,736
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                156,796
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,940
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    4,213
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    4,213
        

</TABLE>
dc* • ^ 3011/02-N &t Po, £** (33<? sr

^LsTTV ~fa7r7ll 10

facx v~" 

### Feb-4~3015,' &rI bfdni^ec&^e. 4yi<y Cofa J^Jtefu^X iA^e^r 79a:, Cr^r brae, cbde «' 

### Uy\<Uc Tex,Or<x~?*<*<' pr^.co^f^n^.^LLL^L uJWlcM Are MnUrsJu V* "^ Tt^^^p ^