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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6700

JOHN F. ALLEN, 

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:08-cv-01343-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John F. Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John F. Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85.

Allen’s challenge to the district court’s timeliness 

ruling hinges on facts and an argument he did not present to the 

district court. We generally do not consider new arguments 

raised for the first time on appeal. See Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 

U.S. 333, 338-39 (1992); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 

(1986); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 
3

“Exceptions to this general rule are made only in very limited 

circumstances, such as where refusal to consider the newlyraised issue would be plain error or would result in a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Id. Such is not the case 

here.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Allen has not made the showing required for issuance of a 

certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

JIMMY BOOKER #N-52835, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 174

)

WARDEN L. JACKSON, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court’s January 13, 2012 memorandum opinion and order

(“Opinion”) dismissed the federal habeas petition that had been

filed pro se by Jimmy Booker (“Booker”) to attack his state court

conviction. Booker has tendered a one-page handwritten filing

that continues to reflect his misunderstanding of the basic

ground rules regarding such petitions.

It is true that this action, like all others, requires the

advance payment of the applicable filing fee unless such payment

is excused because the filer qualifies for in forma pauperis

treatment (a consideration that is inapplicable here because the

filing fee is just a nominal $5). That is why the Opinion began

by speaking to that issue. But Booker’s nonpayment played no

part in the dismissal of his action, as the Opinion went on to

explain.

By the same token, a payment of the $5 filing fee (which

Booker indicates is forthcoming) will have no effect at all on

the fatal flaws that the Opinion identified as calling for
dismissal. Thus Booker’s current requests (1) for forgiveness

and (2) that he be given “another change [sic]” do not change the

result. Those requests by Booker are denied.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 2, 2012

2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T Z HO NG MI NG Z HO U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70906 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 302- 749 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Z hongM i ng Z hou, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order a ff i rm i ng the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) d en i al o f asyl u m , w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an drel i ef u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JU L 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 70906 2 s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g s . See R i ve ra v. Mukasey , 5 0 8 F .3 d1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatZ ho u d em on strat ed changed c ir c u m s tan c e s to e x c u s e th e u n tim e lyf ilin g o f h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . See 8 C .F .R . 2 0 8 .4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ; se e al so R am adan v. G on zales , 47 9 F . 3d 64 6, 65 7– 58 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n yZ h o u ’s a s y lu m c la im . S ub st an t i al ev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e IJ’ s ad v erse cred i b i l i ty fi n d i n g b ecau se Z hou t e s t i f

i e d i nc ons i s t e nt l yw i th r e s pe c tt o the da t e of hi s arr e s tand the l e ngth of tim e h e r e m a in e din C h in aa f te rh is arr e s t. Se e M

a lh iv . I NS , 336 F . 3d 989, 993 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . I n the abs e nc e of c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e , hi s w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l c la im f

a ils . Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 348 F . 3d 1153, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 2003) F i n al l y, Z h o u h as fai l edt o est ab l i sh el i g i b i l i ty fo r C A T rel i ef b ecau se Z hou’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on the s a m e t e s t i m onythe I Jf ound notc r e di bl e and Z h o u p o in ts to n o o th e re v id e n c e th a t th e I Js h o u ldh a v e c o n s id e r e d . Se e id . at 1156–57. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1837 Prepped byKeeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 171 ) IV-C-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/20083:48:11 PM

Sheet 171 of 238P. 2 

# / A \ 

# A-M- M | tW 7 UNITED STATE S E N\%v / 

### <--l l 1^1^- / iSHINCT i I Nw i « < < PflO ^



## ' 5 i AI R AN D RAD I M Honorabl e Dic k

Chene y Hous e o fRepresentative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea rMr . Cheney : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you rlette ro fJun e 19 , 1986 , t o Administrato r Le e Thoma

s commentin g o n th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA's ) rulemakin g regardin g whethe rsurfac e coa l mine s shoul d b e mad e subjec tt o ai r qualit yne

wsourc e revie wpermittin g unde rth e Clea n Ai rAct . I n tha t lette r yo u indicat e stron g agreemen t wit h th e Departmen to fth e Interior' s (DOI's ) statemen t i n suppor t o fth e statu s qu o wit h respec t t o th e regulatio n o f mines . We , too , ar e concerne d wit h th e potentia l cost s o fth e propose d regulation . Th e EP Aha s prepare d an d mad e availabl e fo rpubli ccommenta regulator yimpac tanalysi s o fth e subjec tproposa l tha t shows considerabl y greate rcost s tha n benefit s fro m th e preventio n o fsignifican tdeterioratio n permittin g o fal l surfac e mines . However , thi s analysi s doe s sugges t some potentia l usefulnes s i n regulatin g mine s whic h woul d affec tcertai n parkland s (Clas s I an d mandator yClas s I I areas) . Th e analysi s addresse s i n detai l th e typ e o fIssue s whic h yo u presen t1 n you rletter . M ystaf f1 n th e Offic e o fA1 rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s i s carefull y reviewin g th e DO I comments . Obviously , th e ke yquestio n i s whethe rth e protectio n o fparkland s fro m mine-produce d pollutio n i s relevan ti n thi s rule making . Th e EP

A1 s analyzin g th e possibilit ytha tDO I 1 s currentl yperformin g thi s function , thu s obviatin g th e nee d fo rfurthe ractio n b yEPA . I wil l d o everythin g I ca n t o se e tha t EPA' s fina l actio n i n thi s rulemakin g i s consisten t wit h th e soun d consideratio n o fcost s an d benefit s an d furthe rtha ti ti s no t duplicativ e o fexistin g DO I policie s an d procedures . Than k yo u fo ryou rinteres ti n thi s rulemaking . You rcomments hav e bee n adde d t o th e rulemakin g docket . Sincerely , 

# 9 J . Crai g Potte r Assistan tAdministrato r fo rAi ran d Radiatio n M 

## » 3 

## 1989
§ 935.110 Appeals. ( a ) Any party to an action may, within 15 days after judgment, appeal an interlocutory order, issue of law, or judgment, except that an acquittal may not be appealed, by filing a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Wake Island Court and serving a copy on the opposing party. Judgment is stayed while the appeal is pending.
( b ) Upon receiving a notice of appeal with proof of service on the opposing party, the Clerk shall forward the record of the action to the Wake Island Court of Appeals.
( c ) The appellant shall serve on the opposing party and file a memorandum setting forth his grounds of appeal with the Wake Island Court of Appeals within 15 days after the date of the judgment. The appellee may serve and file a reply memorandum within 15 days thereafter. An appeal and the reply shall be deemed to be filed when deposited in the U.S. mail with proper postage affixed, addressed to the Clerk, Wake Island Court of Appeals, at his address in Washington, DC. The period for filing an appeal may be waived by the Court of Appeals when the interests of justice so require.
( d ) The Court of Appeals may proceed to judgment on the record, or, if the Court considers that the interests of justice so require, grant a hearing.
( e ) The decision of the Court of Appeals shall be in writing and based on the record prepared by the Wake Island Court, on the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, if any be had, and on any memoranda that are filed. If the Court of Appeals considers the record incomplete, the case may be remanded to the Wake Island Court for further proceedings.
( f ) The decision of the Court of Appeals is final.
EXHIBIT (15)

ENSERCH Corporation:


We have made a review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants of the unaudited interim condensed
consolidated financial information of ENSERCH Corporation and subsidiary
companies for the periods ended June 30, 1997 and 1996, as indicated in our
report dated August 13, 1997; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on that information.


We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 2-59259, No. 33-
40589, No. 33-47911 and No. 2-77572 on Forms S-8, Registration Statements No.
33-15623, No. 33-52525 and No. 33-61635 on Form S-3 and in Registration
Statement No. 333-12391 on Form S-4 for ENSERCH Corporation and in
Registration Statements No. 33-32833, No. 33-32835, No. 33-32837, No. 33-
32839, No. 33-32841 and No. 33-32843 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement
No. 33-32831 on Form S-3 for TUC Holding Company.


We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
August 14, 1997
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No.: DA 20-0190

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

)

)

)

) ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL

vs. ) TIME FOR COURT REPORTER TO

) FILE TRANSCRIPT

CHERYL HREN, )

)

Defendant and Appellant. )

)

Upon Motion of the Defendant and Appellant to allow Court Reporter Kathy Hilton an

additional ninety (90) days from July 4, 2020, to file the transcripts, and good cause appearing

therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER:

That Kathy Hilton shall have an additional ninety (90) days frorn July 4, 2020, in which

to file the transcripts in the above-captioned matter.

DATED this day of July, 2020.

1 - ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR COURT REPORTER TO FILE TRANSCRIPT

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 2 2020

07/02/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0190
exv10w1



 







Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated January 1, 2004 is
made and entered into on April 11, 2005, by and between DOUGLAS B. OTTO (hereinafter referred to as
the “Executive”) and DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as the “Company”).



WHEREAS:




     A. The Executive and the Company are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement dated January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”); and



     B. The parties wish to amend the Agreement in certain respects, which amendment shall be
effective as of April 11, 2005.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, do hereby agree as follows:



          1. Section 1.2. Section 1.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:




          “The Executive will serve as the Chairman of the Board of Directors and will report to the
Company’s Board of Directors.”




          2. Section 2.1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement is amended to provide that,
effective as of April 11, 2005, the Executive’s salary is reduced to ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($104,000) per annum, and the Executive’s salary for 2006 is FIFTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($52,000) per annum, with no bonuses or stock-based awards.




          3. Sections 2.2 and 2.3. Sections 2.2, 2.3, 4.1(e),
4.2(e), 4.3(e), 4.4(e), 6.1(c) and 6.1(g) and Exhibit A of
the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety.




          4. Sections 4.1(f), 4.2(f), 4.3(f) and 4.4(f). Sections 4.1(f),
4.2(f), 4.3(f) and 4.4(f) of the Agreement are hereby amended to read as
follows:




          (f) pay the Executive severance of three (3) times the Executive’s annual Base Salary in
effect immediately prior to the time such termination occurs, plus the greater of (x) three (3)
times the annual targeted incentive bonus established by the Compensation Committee and in




-1-









 







effect immediately prior to the time such termination occurs or (y) three (3) times the average
actual annual incentive bonus for the previous three (3) years, whichever is greater. The
severance payment required under this subsection shall be conditioned upon the Executive confirming
the release in Section 5.2 hereof;




     5. RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT. In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby
ratified, confirmed and approved.



-2-









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date hereinabove
set forth.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	“Company”	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Angel Martinez
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Angel Martinez	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: President and CEO.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Address:	 	 
	 	 	495-A South Fairview Avenue	 	 
	 	 	Goleta, CA 93117	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	“Executive”	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Douglas B. Otto	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	DOUGLAS B. OTTO	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Address:	 	 
	 	 	6746 Breakers Way	 	 
	 	 	Ventura, CA 93001	 	 







-3-
Fiscal Year 2011 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2011 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

4300030 PUERTO RICO 520,137,005 104,027,401 1,300.37

4399999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2011 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the maximum amount that affected LEAs -

 those with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
Exhibit 14

Code of Ethics for Finance Professionals

 

 

This Code of Ethics applies to the President, the Chief Financial Officer, the Controller, and other persons performing similar functions for BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C. (the “Firm”). The purpose of this Code of Ethics is to promote honest and ethical conduct, particularly in relation to the maintenance of the Firm’s financial books and records and the preparation of financial statements. This Code of Ethics supplements other codes of conduct of the Firm (or its affiliates) that may be applicable from time to time. 

 

A finance professional is expected to:

 

Act with honesty and promote ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;

 

Disclose to the Board of Directors or the Corporate Secretary any material transaction or relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest;

 

Assist in the providing of full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Firm files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by the Firm;

 

Comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations of federal, state and local governments and other appropriate regulatory agencies;

 

Promptly report to the Board of Directors or Corporate Secretary any violation of this Code of Ethics or other matters that might compromise the integrity of the Firm’s financial statements; and

 

Consult promptly with the Board of Directors should such professional violate this Code of Ethics.

 

 

 

The Firm will take all necessary steps to enforce this Code of Ethics, and violations thereof may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal. Violations of this Code of Ethics may also constitute violations of law and may subject the Firm and finance professionals to criminal or civil penalties. Questions regarding the application of this Code of Ethics should be promptly addressed to the Corporate Secretary.

 

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
EXHIBIT 32.4



Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-Q of
Duquesne Light Company (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stevan R. Schott, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



| | (7) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (8) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 9thday of August, 2005.



/s/ Stevan R. SchottStevan R. SchottSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Duquesne Light Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.