alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 19.500 Employment. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in employment, or recruitment, consideration, or selection therefor, whether full-time or part-time, under any education program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
( 2 ) A recipient shall make all employment decisions in any education program or activity operated by such recipient in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that could adversely affect any applicant's or employee's employment opportunities or status because of sex.
( 3 ) A recipient shall not enter into any contractual or other relationship which directly or indirectly has the effect of subjecting employees or students to discrimination prohibited by §§ 19.500 through 19.550, including relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, and with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient.
( 4 ) A recipient shall not grant preferences to applicants for employment on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preferences has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Application.* The provisions of §§ 19.500 through 19.550 apply to: ( 1 ) Recruitment, advertising, and the process of application for employment;
( 2 ) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, consideration for and award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, application of nepotism policies, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
( 3 ) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation, and changes in compensation;
( 4 ) Job assignments, classifications, and structure, including position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
( 5 ) The terms of any collective bargaining agreement;
( 6 ) Granting and return from leaves of absence, leave for pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, leave for persons of either sex to care for children or dependents, or any other leave;
( 7 ) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
( 8 ) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, selection for tuition assistance, selection for sabbaticals and leaves of absence to pursue training;
( 9 ) Employer-sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
( 10 ) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
#### Bernard Davlin, Appellant, v. Leonora B. Keller, Respondent.

Present —• Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kim-ball, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6416
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DELROY LINDBURGH AMBURSLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 97-6744
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DELROY LINDBURGH AMBURSLEY, Defendant - Appellant.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-53-H, CR-93-52-H, CA-97-51-4-H) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 22, 19972 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. No. 97-6416 affirmed and No. 97-6744 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delroy Lindburgh Ambursley, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, Assistant United States Attorney, Fenita Talore Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 and declining to grant recusal under either 28 U.S.C. § 144 (1994) or 28 U.S.C. § 455 (1994). The district court also denied Appellant's request to hold his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) motion in abeyance. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion denying the motion for a retrial and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm that order on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ambursley , No. CR-93-53-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 1997).With respect to the appeal of the district court's order declining to recuse itself, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Appellant's motion in this court to hold his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings in abeyance pending the disposition of appeal No. 97-6416 is denied asmoot. We also deny Appellant's "Motion for Determination An[d] Petition for Order of Remand of 28 USCA 2255 Back to District Court."4We 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.

No. 97-6416 - AFFIRMED No. 97-6744 - DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          60,446
<SECURITIES>                                    27,334
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,758
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,465
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               292,087
<PP&E>                                          93,139
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,831
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 364,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,703
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              598
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   259,231
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               314,869
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,446)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,302
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,648
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,648
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
§ 206.346 Applicability to disaster assistance. ( a ) *Emergency assistance.* The Regional Administrator may approve assistance pursuant to sections 402, 403, or 502 of the Stafford Act, for emergency actions which are essential to the saving of lives and the protection of property and the public health and safety, are necessary to alleviate the emergency, and are in the public interest. Such actions include but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Removal of debris from public property;
( 2 ) Emergency protection measures to prevent loss of life, prevent damage to improved property and protect public health and safety;
( 3 ) Emergency restoration of essential community services such as electricity, water or sewer;
( 4 ) Provision of access to a private residence;
( 5 ) Provision of emergency shelter by means of providing emergency repair of utilities, provision of heat in the season requiring heat, or provision of minimal cooking facilities;
( 6 ) Relocation of individuals or property out of danger, such as moving a mobile home to an area outside of the CBRS (but disaster assistance funds may not be used to relocate facilities back into the CBRS);
( 7 ) Home repairs to private owner-occupied primary residences to make them habitable;
( 8 ) Housing eligible families in existing resources in the CBRS; and
( 9 ) Mortgage and rental payment assistance.
( b ) *Permanent restoration assistance.* Subject to the limitations set out below, the Regional Administrator may approve assistance for the repair, reconstruction, or replacement but not the expansion of the following publicly owned or operated facilities and certain private nonprofit facilities. ( 1 ) Roads and bridges;
( 2 ) Drainage structures, dams, levees;
( 3 ) Buildings and equipment;
( 4 ) Utilities (gas, electricity, water, etc.); and
( 5 ) Park and recreational facilities.
### §1204. Coordination between the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Labor

(a) Whenever in this chapter or in any provision of law amended by this chapter the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor are required to carry out provisions relating to the same subject matter (as determined by them) they shall consult with each other and shall develop rules, regulations, practices, and forms which, to the extent appropriate for the efficient administration of such provisions, are designed to reduce duplication of effort, duplication of reporting, conflicting or overlapping requirements, and the burden of compliance with such provisions by plan administrators, employers, and participants and beneficiaries.

(b) In order to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of functions among Government agencies, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor may make such arrangements or agreements for cooperation or mutual assistance in the performance of their functions under this chapter, and the functions of any such agencies as they find to be practicable and consistent with law. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor may utilize, on a reimbursable or other basis, the facilities or services, of any department, agency, or establishment of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, including the services, of any of its employees, with the lawful consent of such department, agency, or establishment; and each department, agency, or establishment of the United States is authorized and directed to cooperate with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor and, to the extent permitted by law, to provide such information and facilities as they may request for their assistance in the performance of their functions under this chapter. The Attorney General or his representative shall receive from the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor for appropriate action such evidence developed in the performance of their functions under this chapter as may be found to warrant consideration for criminal prosecution under the provisions of this subchapter or other Federal law.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title III, §3004, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 998.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–406, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6781

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:81-cr-00105-GLR-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6781 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Edward Gill filed a notice of appeal in the underlying criminal action after 

filing a self-styled “Motion to Amend Original Writ of Error Coram Nobis” (“Motion to 

Amend”). The Government has filed a motion to dismiss, asserting, in part, that the district 

court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Amend. This court may exercise jurisdiction only 

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949). Review of the district court docket confirms that the Motion to Amend 

remains pending in the district court. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and 

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6781 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
1 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20657 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID ALLAN REEVES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-835-1

-------------------- February 6 2002 Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

David Allan Reeves appeals his guilty-plea conviction for bank

robbery and brandishing a firearm durin g a crime of violence.

Reeves argues that the district court erroneously informed him that

he faced a maximum three-year term of supervised release at his

guilty-plea hearing , but then sentenced Reeves to five years of

supervised release.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that the district court’s plea admonishment that

Reeves faced a maximum three-year supervised release term was

harmless error. S ee United States v. Bachynsky
, 934 F.2d 1349,

1359-60 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 6, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOSE LOPEZ, a/k/a David Cerpa,

a/k/a Gordo, a/k/a Eduardo RuizAcunis,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-3366

(D.C. No. 2:07-CR-20122-KHV-2)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the

appeal waiver contained in defendant Jose Lopez’s plea agreement. The

defendant pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute

it. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant waived his right to appeal his
-2-

conviction or his sentence, provided his sentence was within the advisory

sentencing guideline range determined by the district court to apply. The

defendant’s sentence was below the statutory maximum and within the advisory

guideline range determined by the court. Nevertheless, the defendant filed a

notice of appeal. 

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement pursuant to

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

In response, the defendant, through counsel, requests the court to permit him to

appeal his sentence, but he advances no arguments why the appeal waiver is

unenforceable, and he concedes that “the Plea Agreement does not allow this

appeal.” Response at 2. We have reviewed the motion, the record and the

defendant’s response, and we agree that the defendant’s proposed appeal falls

within the scope of the appeal waiver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived

his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a

miscarriage of justice. See id., 359 F.3d at 1325 (describing the factors this court

considers when determining whether to enforce a waiver of appellate rights).

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and

DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
#### Gertrude M. Lutz, Appellant, v. American Van Lines, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No.: II-96-42 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

SHEARON HARRIS PLANT RATED “SUPERIOR” IN ALL FOUR

AREAS OF NRC ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Shearon Harris nuclear power plant received performance ratings of “superior” in plant

operations, maintenance, engineering and plant support in the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's latest systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP) of the facility.

The SALP report was sent April 22 to Carolina Power & Light Company, which operates the

facility southwest of Raleigh near New Hill, North Carolina. It evaluates the plant's performance

from April 3, 1994, through March 16 of this year.

NRC and Carolina Power & Light Company officials will discuss the report during a meeting set

for 10:30 a.m. Friday, May 3, at the Harris Energy & Environmental Center near the plant. The

meeting will be open for public observation. NRC officials will be available after the meeting to

speak with reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four functional areas — plant operations,

maintenance, engineering, and plant support — and assign ratings of Category 1, 2 or 3

depending on whether their performance in those areas was superior, good or adequate. The

report on Shearon Harris gives the plant a Category 1 rating in plant operations, maintenance,

engineering and plant support, indicating “superior” performance in all four areas. In the

previous SALP report in 1994, the plant also received 1's in all four areas.

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional Administrator Stewart Ebneter said “this

continued high level of safety performance is due, in part, to strong management involvement

and effective teamwork.” He also noted that there were improvements in several areas

identified as challenges in the previous SALP period.

In the letter, Ebneter pointed to improvements in scheduling of maintenance activities but said

procedures for maintenance and surveillance testing could be improved.

###

EDITORS: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this office.
#### §§ 206.68-206.100 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT
10.26
 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
 
 Hypercom
Corporation (the “Company”) and Philippe Tartavull (the “Executive”) entered
into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement’) on December 20, 2007, which
was amended on October 23, 2008.  Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code is potentially applicable to the Agreement.  The
Agreement has been administered in good faith compliance with the requirements
of Section 409A from December 20, 2007 through the date of this
Amendment and will continue to be so administered.
 
 Section
20 of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following paragraphs to the
end thereof:
 
 (c)           Under
no circumstances may the time or schedule of any payment made or benefit
provided pursuant to this Agreement be accelerated or subject to a further
deferral except as otherwise permitted or required pursuant to regulations and
other guidance issued pursuant to Section 409A of the Code.
 
 (d)           Employee
does not have any right to make any election regarding the time or form of any
payment due under this Agreement.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive has executed this Amendment, and Company has caused
this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative, on this
31st
day of December, 2008.
 
 HYPERCOM
      CORPORATIONBy
                                /s/ Robert VreelandIts
                                Interim CFO“EXECUTIVE”/s/ Philippe TartavullPhilippe
      Tartavull
# BEAL ETRAVE LSERVICE , IN C

2 0 Nort hMichiga nAvenu ePhone : 312-346414 1 Suite21 0 Fax : 312-346421 3 Chicago , I L6060 2 www.bealetravel.co m

Februar y24 , 201 0 ^ Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHoo d ;";.. j Secretar y—Vj^f : Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n tyi M 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E

. ^ Washington , D.C

. , j o 2059 0 - ^ ~ Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretaryLaHood : A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro fAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor t o fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e ne wservic e fro m Ne wYork' s Joh n F

. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor t an d Lo

s Angele s Internationa l Airpor t t o Toky o Internationa l Airpor t a t Haneda

. I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe ri n reachin g a landmar k Ope n Skies agreementv.it h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a t o servic e b yU.S

. airlines

. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m Ne w Yor k an d Los Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o fth e world' s larges t financia l an d commerc e centers
. Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o fJapa n Airlines ' oneworl d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t t o th e trans-Pacifi c market

. America n i s likewis e committe d t o Ne wYor k an d Los Angele s - bot h vita l foca l point s o fbusiness , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai rservic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s Bot h th e Ne wYor k

an d Los Angele s metr o area s wil l gai n significan t economi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a s wil l American' s customer s an d employees , wever , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak e th e JF K& LAX/Haned a connectio n a real t
VIRTUOS O MEMBE R^^ ^ WIHWATONA L SPECIAUST S I N TH E AR TO F TRAVE L 

### realit y CRUIS E UVE S NTERNATION A ASSOCIATION , INC

.

### Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sa yye s t o America n Airline s an d it s reques tfo rslot s t o fl yfro m Kenned yan d Lo s Angele s t o Haneda ! Since r

Hein z 0-/1^ufe r Presiden t Beal e Trave l Service , INC

.