alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7569 DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusNOLAN B. JONES, Chairman of Board of Commissioners; CHARLES BATTLE, JR., Commissioner; LESLIE D. STRAYHORN, Commissioner; SONDRA RIGGS, Commissioner; REYNOLDS MASON, Sheriff; TIM MORTON, Deputy; UNKNOWN DEPUTY; BILLY W. WHITE; HORACE PHILLIPS, Member of Commissioners; JONES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-7754
DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusNOLAN B. JONES, Chairman of Board of Commissioners; CHARLES BATTLE, JR., Commissioner; LESLIE D. STRAYHORN, Commissioner; SONDRA RIGGS, Commissioner; REYNOLDS MASON, Sheriff; TIM MORTON, Deputy; UNKNOWN DEPUTY; BILLY W.WHITE; HORACE PHILLIPS, Member of Commissioners; JONES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-76) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Scott Pierce, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief onhis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and order retaining the record in the district court. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Theclaims Willis raises do not meet the constitutional standards required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Willis's motions to amend the caption and complaint. The district court properly retained the record while motions in the case were still pending. We deny Willis's motions for oral argument. 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LaBranche & Co Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George M.L. LaBranche, IV, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, 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 at the end of, and for, the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |  |  |        |  |                                                
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  |  |       
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ George M. L. LaBranche, IV                 
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | George M.L. LaBranche, IV                      
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be retained by
LaBranche & Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10322

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMMY MERREL JACKSON, also known as TJ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-148-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy Merrel Jackson, federal prisoner # 27477-077, appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion for grand jury materials, which was filed pursuant

to FED. R. CRIM.P. 6. The Government argues that the court lacked jurisdiction

to consider Jackson’s motion because it is best construed as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This argument is unavailing because the motion does not

challenge Jackson’s conviction or sentence, nor does it seek to challenge the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 31, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10322

2

disposition of his first § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Gonzalez v. Crosby,

545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005).

Jackson’s argumentthatthe district court erred by denying his requestfor

grand jury materials is likewise unavailing. Jackson has not shown a

particularized need for these materials. See United States v. Miramontez, 995

F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1993); In re McDermott & Co., Inc., 622 F.2d 166, 172 (5th

Cir. 1980). Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion by denying his motion. See Miramontez, 995 F.2d at 59. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Search Home
 Proceedings
 On this page
The Reading Room
FMC Law Reporters
FMC Laws and Regulations


Statutes
RegulationsResources for Attorneys and Litigants
Forms and Applications



The Reading Room


The Commission maintains a log or listing of all documents received or issued in formal proceedings before the Commission. Please note that at this time, logs are neither generated nor published for informal complaints (small claims).



Search Proceedings – find cases by name or docket number



Search Documents – find most recent Commission issuances



Additionally, the Commission uses Regulations.gov to receive filed comments for proposed rulemakings.



Regulations.gov



FMC Law Reporters


The Commission publishes Law Reporters containing the Commission’s most significant decisions and orders in adjudicative cases.



FMC Proceedings and Reports



Historical Federal Maritime Commission Reports



FMC Laws and Regulations


Statutes


Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022



Title 46 USC Subtitle IV, Part A – Ocean Shipping (46 USC 40101 – 41310)



Title 46 USC Subtitle IV, Part B – Actions to Address Foreign Practices (46 USC 42101 – 42503)



Title 46 USC Subtitle IV, Part C – Evidence of Financial Responsibility for Passenger Transportation (46 USC 44101 – 44106)



Title 46 USC Subtitle IV, Part D – Federal Maritime Commission (46 USC 46101 – 46107)Regulations


e-CFR pertaining to the FMC: 46 CFR Chapter IV (GPO)



Historical versions of the CFR (annual edition from FDsys)



Resources for Attorneys and Litigants


Resources for Attorneys and Litigants



Summary of Fees



Forms and Applications


Forms and Applications Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
EX-10.4






Dear Maynard,



On December 21, 1999, CSK Auto Corporation awarded to you stock options to purchase 36,000
shares of CSK Auto common stock at an exercise price of $14.00/share with a three year vesting
schedule, which options were amended on December 18, 2006 pursuant to a letter agreement wherein
you elected to either exercise your December 21, 1999 stock options during 2007 (pursuant to the
terms and conditions therein described) or to allow them to expire unexercised at the end of 2007
(collectively, the “Option Contract”). This letter agreement, which is being entered into
contemporaneously with an amendment to your Employment Agreement, is intended to amend the exercise
period relative to such options upon your Retirement (as defined below) from the Company.
Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to in the 1999 Employee Stock
Option Plan (“1999 Plan”).



Prior to the execution of this letter agreement, pursuant to the terms of your stock option
grant, if your relationship with the Company, its Parent and Subsidiaries as an employee terminates
for any reason (other than as a result of death or Disability), you may exercise stock options, to
the extent exercisable on the date of such termination, at any time during the 30 days commencing
six months after the date of such termination, but not thereafter.



In view of your past services, notwithstanding any other provision of the Option Contract or
the 1996 Plan relating to these options, if you cease to be an employee or director of the Company
or any subsidiary or parent of the Company by reason of retirement (provided that you have attained
the age of 65 and the sum of your age and years of service with the Company is 75 or higher)
(herein, “Retirement”), the stock options shall remain exercisable for (and, subject to federal
securities laws, including laws regarding insider trading, and any other exercise restrictions set
forth in the governing stock option plan and contract, as modified by this letter agreement, may be
exercised at any time during), and shall expire (unless exercised), six months after such
termination of employment, but in no event later than December 31, 2007. In the event of
termination for any other reason, the original terms of the Option Contract and 1999 Plan shall
govern.



In order to satisfy certain requirements under the federal tax code in connection with the
afore-described modification of your options, your signature below is deemed to be an acceptance of
CSK Auto’s offer to modify the exercise period and term for these stock options.



Please note that CSK Auto is not providing here nor will it provide tax, legal or financial
advice. You are urged to consult your own advisors in connection with taking any action with
respect to your stock options.




CSK AUTO CORPORATION



	 	 	 
	By:     

Dale Ward

Executive Vice President

	 	     

Date



	 
	 	 
	     

Maynard Jenkins

	 	     

Date







     




Tax Identification No. / Soc. Sec. No.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lisa TONEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4009.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2008.*

Decided May 16, 2008.

Christina Egan, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Andrew J. McGowan, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Lisa Toney was convicted of federal crimes, including credit-card fraud, after *638she and her boyfriend obtained fraudulent credit cards in her husband’s name and killed him with a mail bomb after he found out. Toney initially was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay $141,942 in mandatory restitution, but her case was on direct appeal when the Supreme Court decided *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and in light of that decision we remanded for resentencing. *See United States v. Toney,*177 Fed.Appx. 486 (7th Cir.2006). On remand the district court lowered To-ney’s overall term of imprisonment to 300 months but otherwise reinstated the judgment, including the order of restitution. Toney appeals again, this time arguing that the district court erroneously ordered her to pay the restitution immediately instead of setting payment schedules for her terms of imprisonment and supervised release.

Because Toney did not object in the district court to the lack of a payment schedule, we review only for plain error. *United States v. Thigpen,*456 F.3d 766, 771 (7th Cir.2006). Toney relies on this court’s holdings in *Thigpen, United States v. Pandiello,*184 F.3d 682 (7th Cir.1999), and *United States v. Mohammad,*53 F.3d 1426 (7th Cir.1995), to argue that the failure to set a payment schedule was plain error. But after briefing in this case concluded, we overruled those cases in *United States v. Sawyer,*521 F.3d 792, 798-99 (7th Cir.2008). After *Sawyer,*payments during incarceration should be handled through the Bureau of Prisons, not set by the district court. *Id.*at 795-96. So the district court did not err at all by not setting a payment schedule for the term of imprisonment. It was error for the district court not to set a payment schedule for Toney’s term of supervised release, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2), but that error was not plain. *See Sawyer,*521 F.3d at 798-99.

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Cordero Addressed the California Association of Port Authorities Annual Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ww74jQZ8KZ\"><a href=\"\/chairman-cordero-addressed-the-california-association-of-port-authorities-annual-meeting\/\">Chairman Cordero Addressed the California Association of Port Authorities Annual Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-cordero-addressed-the-california-association-of-port-authorities-annual-meeting\/embed\/#?secret=ww74jQZ8KZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Cordero Addressed the California Association of Port Authorities Annual Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"ww74jQZ8KZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bruce E. DUNBAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30235.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2008.*

Filed May 12, 2008.

Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Carl H. Blackstone, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mary Anne Royle, Esq., Law Offices of Mary Anne Royle, Vancouver, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GRABER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Otis D. Wright II, United States District Court for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Bruce Dunbar appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and the procedure for selecting the sentence imposed upon revocation.1

1. The district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search of Defendant’s residence. On de novo review, *United States v. Crawford,*372 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc), we find no error. Assuming without deciding that the probation officers used excessive force, discovery of the evidence was not “causally related to the manner of executing the search,” *United States v. Ankeny,*502 F.3d 829, 837 (9th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2423, 171 *750L.Ed.2d 233 (2008), so suppression is not warranted, *id.*at 838.

2. We review the procedural sentencing issue for plain error, because Defendant did not object to the adequacy of the district court’s reasons. *United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court provided sufficient reasons for the sentence. *See United States v. Carly,*520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (holding that a district court need not enumerate every possible statutory factor to show that the court has considered all factors). The court’s reasons were implicit in the colloquy that the court conducted: Defendant refused to accept responsibility for his violations of supervised release but instead blamed others, Defendant classified himself as unsupervisable, and Defendant stated an intention to reoffend upon release from prison. *See United States v. Vences,*169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there was no plain error when the district court’s reasons for a sentence were implicit in the colloquy with defense counsel, notwithstanding failure to comply with technical requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Defendant attempts to raise an additional issue in the reply brief, but his failure to raise it in the opening brief constitutes waiver. *Sanchez v. Pac. Powder Co.,*147 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1998).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding the Commission\u2019s Re-authorization","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YjFulqsuzA\"><a href=\"\/chairman-cordero-testifies-to-congress-regarding-the-commissions-re-authorization\/\">Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding the Commission\u2019s Re-authorization<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-cordero-testifies-to-congress-regarding-the-commissions-re-authorization\/embed\/#?secret=YjFulqsuzA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding the Commission\u2019s Re-authorization” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"YjFulqsuzA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**DIGIMARCCORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the periodic report of DigimarcCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, BruceDavis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the datehereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of theUnited States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

2.      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

This Certificationhas not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.
| Date: May 10, 2006 |                      |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|
| By:                     | /s/ BRUCE DAVIS           |   |
|                    | Bruce Davis               |   |
|                    | *Chief Executive Officer* | * * |

 

----