alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1162

___________

Carl Eric Olsen, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the United States

* Drug Enforcement Agency.

Drug Enforcement Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: August 25, 2009

Filed: August 26, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carl Olsen petitions this court, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 877, for review of a final

determination by the Drug Enforcement Administration denying his request for a

rescheduling of marijuana based upon its medical usefulness. He maintains that he

has been injured by his inability to use marijuana for religious purposes. Upon de

novo review, we conclude that Olsen lacks standing under Article III of the United

States Constitution. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)

(Article III standing requires “injury in fact,” causal connection between injury and

conduct complained of, and likelihood that injury will be redressed by favorable

decision); Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc., 424 F.3d 840, 843

(8th Cir. 2005) (Article III standing is question of subject matter jurisdiction which
-2-

this court reviews de novo); Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 433 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

(§ 811(a)(2) does not provide “automatic standing” to petition federal court for review

of DEA’s denial of request; petitioner must have Article III standing). Accordingly,

we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6921

CLIFTON V. GRAVES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

FREDERICK E. DAVIS, Sheriff,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-

3552-AMD)

Submitted: November 3, 2004 Decided: December 3, 2004

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifton V. Graves, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Breads, Jr.,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Clifton V. Graves appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Graves v.

Charles County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CA-03-3552-AMD (D. Md. May 18,

2004). 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
#### In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant, v Anthony Gardaner, Respondent, et al., Respondent. Travelers Insurance Company, Proposed Additional Respondent.

[859 NYS2d 74]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.H.O.), dated March 27, 2007, which, after a framed-issue hearing, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration and, in effect, directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that Travelers Insurance Company (hereinafter Travelers) was justified in disclaiming insurance coverage for its insured because of his failure to cooperate in the defense of an action against him. Under the circumstances of this case, where there was no cooperation by the insured, the insured could not be located after a diligent search, and there had been misrepresentations made by the insured when applying for insurance, there was a breach of the cooperation clause *(see Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Graham,*275 AD2d 1012, 1013 [2000]; *Peerless Ins. Co. v Sears,*34 AD2d 725 [1970], *affd*29 NY2d 717 [1971]; *Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v Holdeman,*23 AD2d 878, 879 [1965], *affd*18 NY2d 997 [1966]). Additionally, inasmuch as the driver of the insured’s vehicle supplied the police with a nonexistent address, Travelers’ failure to serve a separate disclaimer on the driver did not render the original disclaimer ineffective *(see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rico,*28 AD3d 353, 354 [2006]). Miller, J.P, Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.3(a)**

**AMENDMENTTO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT**

THIS AMENDMENT TO****SEVERANCEAGREEMENT (the “***Amendment***”), is entered intoas of August 9, 2005, by and between Cornell Companies, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “***Company***”), and Mark S. Croft(the “***Executive***”).

Recital:

WHEREAS, the CompensationCommittee of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Board ofDirectors have determined that it is in the best interests of the Company andits stockholders to amend that certain Severance Agreement, dated as ofNovember 28, 2005, by and between Company and Executive.

Agreement:

The Company and Executiveagree that Section 2(a) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety andreplaced with the following:

## “2(a)  The Company shall pay to the Executive in alump sum in cash, concurrently with the Termination Date, a payment equal to150% of the sum of (i) the Executive’s highest annual base salary as of theTermination Date or the Change in Control Date plus (ii) the average of theannual bonus paid or payable, including by reason of any deferral, to theExecutive by the Company or its Affiliates in respect of the two most recentfull fiscal years ending on or prior to the Termination Date (or if theExecutive has not been employed for two full fiscal years, then the annualbonus in respect of the most recent full fiscal year).”

# Except as set forth above,no other term or condition of the Agreement is modified or amended.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the date firstwritten above.

 
|            |       | **CORNELL COMPANIES, INC.** |
|------------|------------|-----------------------------|
|       |       | By:                         | /s/ Patrick N. Perrin |
|       |       |                        | Patrick N. Perrin |
|       |       |                        | Sr. V.P., Chief Administrative Officer |
| ** ** | ** ** | **THE EXECUTIVE**           |
|       |       | /s/ Mark S. Croft           |
|       |       | Mark S. Croft               |

 

----
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-19475, 333-06569, and 33-87826) and on Form S-3 (No.
333-37529) of Aasche Transportation Services, Inc. and in the related Prospectus
of our report dated March 12, 1999, except for Note 4 and the third paragraphs
of Notes 5 and 6, as to which the date is April 15, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Aasche Transportation Services, Inc.,
included in the Annual Report to Shareholders (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 15, 1999
#### Sherri Chambers et al., Respondents, v James Sickles, Individually and Doing Business as Sickles Corporation, Incorrectly Sued as James Sickels, Individually and Doing Business as Sickels Corp., et al., Defendants, and Larry Carter, Individually and Doing Business as Carter Drywall, Appellant.

[858 NYS2d 626]

Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered December 6, 2006. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion and amended cross motion of defendant Larry Carter, individually and doing business as Carter Drywall, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.

Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance of action signed by the attorneys for the parties on February 18, 2008 and filed in the Ontario County Clerk’s Office on March 6, 2008,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Vincent C. Smith, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Quest Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quest Software, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    VINCENT C. SMITH
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                   |  | Vincent C. Smith       
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                  |  | Chief Executive Officer
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3119 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, as the ‘‘Lim Poon Lee Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3119 EH

1 SECTION 1. LIM POON LEE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San 

4 Francisco, California, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Lim Poon Lee Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lim Poon Lee Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3119 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Francisco, California, as the ‘‘Lim Poon Lee al Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San
Exhibit 21

POLYMER GROUP, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

The following comprises a list of the subsidiaries of the Company as of January 3, 2004:

PGI
Polymer, Inc.
DT Acquisition Inc.
Fabrene Group, L.L.C.
Bonlam (S.C.), Inc.
FabPro Oriented Polymers, Inc.
Chicopee, Inc.
PGI Nonwovens Mauritius, Ltd.
Dominion Textile Mauritius, Inc.
Bonlam S.A. de C.V.
Fabrene Group, Inc.
Fabrene, Inc.
Loretex Corporation
Dominion Textile (USA) Inc.
Fabrene Corp.
Nanhai Nanxin Non-Wovens Co. Ltd.
Dominion Nonwovens Sudamerica, S.A.
Bonlam Andina Ltd.
Bonlam Holdings BV
DIFCO Performance Fabrics, Inc.
FiberTech Group, Inc.
PNA Corp.
PGI Europe, Inc.
Poly-Bond Inc.
Pristine Brands Corporation
Polyionix Separation Technologies, Inc.
Technetics Group, Inc.
FNA Polymer Corp.
Chicopee Holdings B.V.
FiberGol Corporation
FNA Acquisition, Inc.
PGI Holdings BV
PGI Holdings CV
PGI Nonwovens BV
PGI Neunkirchen GmbH
PGI Ltd.
PGI Nonwovens A.B.
Geca Tapes B.V.
Albuma S.A.S.
Geca Tapes PTE LTD

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,681
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,285
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     55,317
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,839
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,868
<LOANS>                                        147,182
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,994
<DEPOSITS>                                     184,332
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,254
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,374
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 225,994
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,955
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,628
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   201
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,784
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,174
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,174
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,610
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (86)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,297
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         928
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       928
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.63
<LOANS-NON>                                        302
<LOANS-PAST>                                        46
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,799
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,776
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      199
<RECOVERIES>                                       222
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,799
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,799
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 24.3

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned director of
Mymetics Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, does make, constitute and appoint
John M. Musacchio, with full power and authority, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report of Mymetics Corporation on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2001, and to file such Annual Report, so signed,
with all exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby
further granting unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and
perform any and all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done in and
about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do
in person, the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney
and agent shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS HEREUNTO SET HIS HAND AND SEAL
THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002.


                                            /s/ Pierre-Francois Serres
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Pierre-Francois Serres, Director
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Vincent C. Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Quest Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quest Software, Inc.



|      |  |                   |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: |  | December 31, 2007 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Vincent C. Smith   
|      |  |                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Vincent C. Smith       
|      |  |                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         606,021
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  529,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,315,310
<PP&E>                                         71,114
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,034,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,437,421
<BONDS>                                        1,329,664
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,267,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,034,797
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               92,134
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               69,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                23,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            18,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   18,170
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diane Michele DIXON, also known as Diane Michele Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40664

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 6, 2011.

James Andrew Williams, I, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Jackson Herrington, Herrington Law Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Diane Michele Dixon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Dixon has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Dixon’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for *393appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Dixon’s motion for release pending appeal is DENIED. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cut. 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. Bryan CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-2884.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued June 15, 2011.

Decided July 11, 2011.

Meghan C. Morrissey, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ellen R. Domph, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Bryan Campbell brokered a meeting between a crack dealer and a potential customer. His stint as a middleman landed him a conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. On appeal Campbell argues that the district court should have postponed his sentencing until the Fair Sentencing Act went into effect. We disagree; the court did not have the authority to postpone Campbell’s sentencing to allow him to take advantage of a change in the law regarding sentences in crack cases. Campbell also contends that the district court ought to have sentenced him below his guidelines range using the powder-cocaine guidelines, as the court had done with his codefendant, the crack dealer. On this issue we conclude that the court did not sufficiently explain its refusal to use the same approach in sentencing Campbell, so we vacate Campbell’s sentence and remand for additional explanation.
<PAGE>
                                PROMISSORY NOTE

$55,000                                                Colorado Springs, CO
                                                       May 26, 2000

     The undersigned, iRV, Inc. (the "Borrower") does hereby promise to pay to
the order of Clifford Neuman (the "Lender"), in lawful money of the United
States of America the combined principal sum of Various Dollars, due on
demand, together with interest art a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum
(computed on the basis of a 365-day year) from the date of the note.

     Borrower reserves the right at any time to pay all or part of the
principal due on this Note with interest to the time of payment, and with no
penalty.

     This note shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado. In the event of any default hereunder, the
borrower hereby agrees to pay the Lender hereof reasonable attorney's fees,
legal expenses and lawful collection costs incurred in conjunction with the
enforcement of this obligation in addition to all of the sums due hereunder.

                                   iRV, Inc.


                                   By:
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Bradley Smith, CFO