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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERIC DEWON BRITT, a/k/a Anthony Gerard Wilson,

a/k/a E,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-96-208, CA-99-778-2)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 30, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Dewon Britt, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Dewon Britt seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Britt’s notice

of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States is a party to a civil case, parties are

accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final

judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1),

unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.”

Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)

(quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July

2, 1999. Britt’s notice of appeal was filed on September 1, 1999.*

Because Britt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
3

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 8.1

**MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES**

Our operations are conducted principally by Ambev, and, in the case of our HILA-Ex, Latin America South and Canadian operations, by direct and indirect subsidiaries of Ambev.  The following is a list of the significant companies that Ambev controlled, either directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2014:   

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Ambev Luxembourg (incorporated in Luxemburg) which owns 100% of Labatt Brewing Co. Ltd. (incorporated in Canada).  These entities explore the production of beer in Canada.

·         The Company indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Linthal ROU S.A., which, through its subsidiaries, produces and sells beer and soft drinks in Uruguay and other South American countries.

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Arosuco Aromas e Sucos Ltda. (incorporated in Brazil), which produces concentrates for our soft drinks and crowns.  

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Eagle Distribuidora de Bebidas S.A. (incorporated in Brazil).  

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Jalua Spain S.L. (incorporated in Spain).  

·         The Company, indirectly owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in Monthiers S.A. (incorporated in Uruguay).  

·         The Company, directly and indirectly, owns 100% of the economic and voting interests in CRBS S.A (incorporated in Brazil), which produces and sells beer and soft drinks in Brazil.
936 A.2d 848

#### In the Matter of the REINSTATEMENT OF Leslie Blish HOLT to the Bar of Maryland.

Misc. Docket AG No. 12,

Sept. Term, 2005.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 5, 2007.

ORDER

The Court having considered the Petition of Leslie Blish Holt for Reinstatement and the response of Bar Counsel filed thereto, it is this 5th day of December, 2007

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the petition be, and it is *351hereby, GRANTED, and the petitioner, Leslie Blish Holt, is reinstated to the practice of law in this State, and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name of Leslie Blish Holt upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this State and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State.
PGI Part 205 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS       PGI 205.2 -SYNOPSES OF PROPOSED CONTRACT ACTIONS                                                         PGI 205.205 Special situations.                                                            PGI 205.207 Preparation and transmittal of synopses.    **Parent topic:** PGI Defense Federal Acquisition RegulationPGI 205.2 -SYNOPSES OF PROPOSED CONTRACT ACTIONS    PGI 205.205 Special situations.       (h) Notice regarding timely definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts. To obtain definitization data for requests for equitable adjustment to include in solicitations for construction contracts, access the PALT/Protest/REA Tracker module in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website at https://piee.eb.mil. Search the PALT/Protest/REA Tracker for the applicable military department or defense agency data and—          (i) If data exists, download the table and include it as an attachment to the solicitation notice in the Governmentwide point of entry (GPE); or          (ii) If no data exists, then include the following statement in the Description section of the solicitation notice: “No data is available regarding the timely definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts.” (See PGI 236.211(b)(2) for reporting data on definitization of equitable adjustments.)          (iii) Include a description of military department or defense agency policies or procedures, in addition to that outlined in FAR 43.204, that apply to definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts. This description may be provided in a notice by including an address of an agency-specific, publicly available website containing this information.          (iv) If the military department or defense agency does not have agency-specific procedures, include the following statement: “There are no agency-specific policies or procedures that apply to the definitization of equitable adjustments for change orders under construction contracts.”PGI 205.207 Preparation and transmittal of synopses.       (a)(i) *Notice numbering*.          (1) For a particular procurement, when submitting notices at different stages of the acquisition (i.e., sources sought notice, pre-solicitation notice, award notice), ensure the solicitation number is entered exactly the same way in order to allow all to be retrieved when a search is performed.          (2) Use only alpha-numeric characters in the solicitation and award number data elements in the GPE. Do not include hyphens, slashes, or other special characters.          (d) *Special notices for small business events*. When advertising an event for small businesses, post a 'special notice' notice type and ensure the "title" data field begins with "Small Business Event". This will enable the public to easily search the GPE using the small business event calendar on the website.
847.306-70 Records of claims.

When contracting for transportation, and consistent with FAR 15.304, contracting officers should

consider using offerors' record of claims involving loss or damage as an evaluation factor or

subfactor.

Parent topic: Subpart 847.3 - Transportation in Supply Contracts
PGI 242.7502 Policy.

(d) Disposition of findings.

(2) Initial determination.

(ii)(A) Within 10 days of receiving the report, if the contracting officer makes a determination that

there is a significant deficiency, the contracting officer should provide an initial determination of

deficiencies and a copy of the report to the contractor and require the contractor to submit a written

response.

(C) Evaluation of contractor's response. Within 30 days of receiving the contractor’s response, the

contracting officer, in consultation with the auditor or cognizant functional specialist, should

evaluate the contractor’s response and make a final determination.

(3) Final Determination.

(ii)(A) Monitoring contractor's corrective action. The auditor and the contracting officer shall

monitor the contractor's progress in correcting deficiencies. If the contractor fails to make adequate

progress, the contracting officer shall take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the

contractor corrects the deficiencies. Examples of actions the contracting officer can take are:

disapproving the system; bringing the issue to the attention of higher level management;

implementing or increasing the withholding in accordance with 252.242-7005, Contractor Business

Systems, if applicable; and recommending non-award of potential contracts.

(B) Correction of significant deficiencies.

(1) When the contractor notifies the contracting officer that the contractor has corrected the

significant deficiencies, the contracting officer shall request that the auditor review the correction to

determine if the deficiencies have been resolved.

(2) The contracting officer shall determine if the contractor has corrected the deficiencies.

(3) If the contracting officer determines the contractor has corrected the deficiencies, the

contracting officer's notification shall be sent to the auditor; payment office; appropriate action

officers responsible for reporting past performance at the requiring activities; and each contracting

and contract administration office having substantial business with the contractor as applicable.

(g) Mitigating the risk of accounting system deficiencies on specific proposals.

(2) In the event that a contractor’s accounting system contains deficiencies, even if it has been

disapproved, a cost reimbursement contract is not prohibited if the contracting officer determines

that the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract

or order.

Parent topic: PGI 242.75 -CONTRACTOR ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS AND RELATED CONTROLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7429

JOE LEE FULGHAM,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

NONE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,

District Judge. (2:12-cv-00445-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joe Lee Fulgham seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Fulgham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny Fulgham’s motion to appoint counsel, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
SUBCHAPTER F—SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF

CONTRACTING

PART 1834—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION

PART 1835—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

PART 1836—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

PART 1837—SERVICE CONTRACTING

PART 1839—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

PART 1834—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION

Subpart 1834.2—Earned Value Management System

1834.201 Policy.

1834.203 Solicitation provisions and contract clause.

1834.203-70 NASA solicitation provision and contract clause.

PART 1835—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

1835.016-70 Foreign participation under broad agency announcements (BAAs).

1835.016-71 NASA Research Announcements.

1835.070 NASA contract clauses and solicitation provision.

PART 1836—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

Subpart 1836.2—Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction

1836.203 Government estimate of construction costs.(NASA supplements

paragraph (c))

1836.213-370 Additive and deductive items.

Subpart 1836.5—Contract Clauses

1836.513 Accident prevention.

1836.570 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clause.

Subpart 1836.6—Architect-Engineer Services

1836.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

1836.602-1 Selection criteria. (NASA supplements paragraph (a))

Subpart 1836.70—Partnering

1836.7004 NASA solicitation provision and contract clause.

PART 1837—SERVICE CONTRACTING

Subpart 1837.1—Service Contracts—General

1837.101 Definitions.

1837.104 Personal services contracts. (NASA supplements paragraph (b))

1837.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

1837.110-70 NASA solicitation provision and contract clauses.

1837.170 Pension portability.

Subpart 1837.2—Advisory and Assistance Services

1837.203 Policy.

1837.203-70 Providing contractors access to sensitive information.

1837.203-71 Release of contractors' sensitive information.

1837.203-72 NASA contract clauses.

PART 1839—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Subpart 1839.1—General

1839.107 Contract clause.

1839.107-70 NASA contract clause.
PUBLIC LAW 109–335—OCT. 12, 2006 120 STAT. 1775

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6051:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 27, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–335

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 2 South

Main Street in Akron, Ohio, as the ‘‘John F. Seiberling Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building and United States courthouse located

at 2 South Main Street in Akron, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John F. Seiberling Federal Building and United

States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building and

United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

to be a reference to the ‘‘John F. Seiberling Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

Approved October 12, 2006.

Oct. 12, 2006

[H.R. 6051]
ex10-1.htm


    Exhibit 10.1

     

    
      VALENCE
TECHNOLOGY, INC.

        

      February
22, 2010

       

      Mr. Carl
E. Berg

      Berg
& Berg Enterprises, LLC

      10050
Bandley Drive

      Cupertino,
CA 95014

       

      Re: Share Purchase

       

      Dear Mr.
Berg:

      


      This
letter agreement will confirm the sale, effective as of the date set forth
above, by Valence Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) to Berg & Berg
Enterprises, LLC (“Berg & Berg”) of 1,086,957 shares (the Shares) of the
Company’s common stock at a per share price of $0.92, which represents the
closing bid price of the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market on
February 22, 2010, for aggregate consideration of $1,000,000.00.

       

      These
Shares were offered and sold in a transaction exempt from the registration
requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities
Act”).  Berg & Berg understands that the Shares are “restricted
securities” and have not been registered under the Securities Act or any
applicable state securities law.  Berg & Berg is acquiring the
Shares as principal for its own account and not with a view to or for
distributing or reselling such Shares or any part thereof in violation of the
Securities Act or any applicable state securities law; has no present intention
of distributing any of such Shares in violation of the Securities Act or any
applicable state securities law; and has no direct or indirect arrangement or
understandings with any other persons to distribute or regarding the
distribution of such Shares in violation of the Securities Act or any applicable
state securities law.  Berg & Berg is an “accredited investor” as
defined under Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      VALENCE
TECHNOLOGY, INC.

       

      


      By:  
 /s/ Ross A.
Goolsby

      Ross A. Goolsby

      Chief Financial Officer

       

      ACCEPTED
AND AGREED:

       

      Berg
& Berg, LLC

       

      


      By:  /s/ Carl E.
Berg

      Carl E.
Berg

      Managing
Member
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 7 of 7
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### §§ 4.504-4.509 [Reserved]
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 34

Congratulating the University of Southern California Trojans for their second 

straight national title. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Mr. COX (for himself, Mrs. BONO, Ms. WATSON, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. 

SOLIS, and Mr. SHADEGG) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the University of Southern California Trojans 

for their second straight national title.

Whereas the University of Southern California football team, 

the Trojans, won the 2005 Orange Bowl, defeating the 

University of Oklahoma by a score of 55 to 19; 

Whereas the Trojans went 13–0 overall, the team’s first ever 

13–0 season; 

Whereas this season marked the eighth perfect season of the 

Trojans; 

Whereas the Trojans won their third consecutive Pac-10 title; 

Whereas the Trojans are the second team in history to hold 

the number one spot for the entire season in the Associated Press poll; 
2

•HRES 34 IH 

Whereas the Trojans have scored at least 20 points in their 

last 39 games; 

Whereas the Trojans set a school record by defeating an opponent by at least 30 points for the eighth time this season, breaking the old record of seven times set in 1929; 

Whereas the University of Southern California quarterback, 

Matt Leinart, was honored with the Heisman Trophy and 

as the Associated Press’ Player of the Year and several 

other Trojans were similarly honored for national excellence at their positions; 

Whereas Coach Pete Carroll is the second coach in University 

of Southern California football history to win back-toback national titles; 

Whereas the University of Southern California has won a 

total of 105 national championships; and 

Whereas President Steve Sample has led the University of 

Southern California to national distinction in both academics and athletics: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes and congratulates the University of Southern Cali3 fornia’s football players, coaches, and support staff for 

4 their superior achievement, and the entire Trojan family 

5 of students, faculty, administrators, alumni, and friends 

6 for their contributions to one of the Nation’s most distin7 guished universities.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv754-WC

)

TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED )

THIRTY FIVE ($2,935) DOLLARS )

IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

DEFENDANT. )

ORDER ON MOTION 

Upon consideration of the motion of the United States for a Decree of Forfeiture (Doc.

#17), it is hereby 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Court will enter a separate Decree of

Forfeiture.

DONE this the 6th day of March, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00754-WC Document 18 Filed 03/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1


 


Description of 2010 Cash Bonus Arrangements for Named
Executive Officers


 


·      Each
named executive may receive a cash bonus for 2010 based on a percentage of that
executive’s base salary as in effect at the time of the determination of the
bonus.


 


·      One
half of the bonus percentage will be determined by the Company’s overall
financial performance, as measured by the Company’s fully diluted earnings per
share for fiscal year 2010.


 


·      One
half of the bonus percentage will be determined by the executive’s individual
performance, as measured by factors the Compensation Committee may deem
appropriate.


 


·      The
aggregate target bonus for our chief executive officer will be 100% of his base
salary.


 


·      The
aggregate maximum bonus for our chief executive officer will be 200% of his
base salary.


 


·      The
aggregate target bonus for our chief financial officer will be 65% of his base
salary.


 


·      The
aggregate maximum bonus for our chief financial officer will be 130% of his
base salary.


 


·      The
overall maximum bonus percentages also may be increased or reduced based on the
Company’s financial performance.