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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1921

CHRISTINA BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMAZON HEADQUARTERS, LLC, a/k/a Amazon.com, Inc.; AMAZON 

LOGISTICS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00189-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christina Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Paul Berg, Gilda Bethany Ingle, LITTLER 

MENDELSON PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1921 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christina Brown appeals the district court’s order (a) denying Brown’s motions to 

remand and for leave to amend her complaint; and (b) granting Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss Brown’s wrongful death action against Defendants. We have reviewed the record 

and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Brown 

v. Amazon Headquarters, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00189-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2023). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1921 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
C AUSE N O

. 201 6

- 19 307

C ITY OF H OUSTON ,

P LAINTIFF ,

V

.

H OUSTON P ROFESSIONAL F IRE F IGHTERS ’ A SSOCIATION , L OCAL 341,

D

EFENDANT

. §

§ § § § § § § § § § I N THE D ISTRICT C OURT

H ARRIS C OUNTY , T EXAS

1 2 7 TH J UDICIAL D ISTRICT

Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1, the City of Houston

(“City ” ) file s this Notice of A ppeal

.

1. Plaintiff

, City of Houston, desire s to appeal the granting of Defendant’s

Motion for Final Summary Judgment in C ause Number 201 6

- 19 307 , in

the 1 2 7 th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas

.

2. The District Court signed the Order granting Defendant ’ s motion on April

17 , 201 8 in this cause.

3

. This appeal is taken to the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals at

Houston, Texas.

4

. Plaintiff has not previously filed a related appeal or original proceeding in

either the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals. 5/16/2018 2:20 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County

Envelope No. 24642556 By: Phyllis Washington Filed: 5/16/2018 2:20 PMForOfficialGovernmentalUseOnly-DoNotDisseminatetothePublic:79961822-Page1of3 ACCEPTED

14-18-00418-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/22/2018 3:01 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2

5

. This is an appeal of a final judgment under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§ 51.01 2

.
Respectfully submitted,

RONALD C. LEWIS City Attorney DONALD J. FLEMING Chief, Labor, Employment & Civil Rights Section JUDITH L. RAMSEY Chief, General Litigation Section

By: /s/ Robert W. Higgason Robert W. Higgason Senior Assistant City Attorney State Bar No.: 09590800 C ITY OF H OUSTON L EGAL D EPARTMENT 900 Bagby, 3rd Floor Houston, Texas 77002 832.393.64 81

– Telephone 832.393.6259

– Facsimile robert.higgason@houstontx.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff City o f HoustonForOfficialGovernmentalUseOnly-DoNotDisseminatetothePublic:79961822-Page2of33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 16, 2018 , a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on counsel below via e

- service.

Richard C. M umey T HE M U MEY L AW F IRM , PLLC 1225 North Loop West, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 770 08 rick@mumeyfirm.com

Attorney for Defendant

/s/ Robert W. Higgason Robert W. HiggasonForOfficialGovernmentalUseOnly-DoNotDisseminatetothePublic:79961822-Page3of3In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris County, Texas certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original record filed and or recorded in my office, electronically or hard copy, as it appears on this date. Witness my official hand and seal of office

79961822 Total Pages: 3 Certified Document Number: May 22, 2018 this
#### CLARK et etc v P U C

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21972.

Decided March 5, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### § 110.74c Bahia de San Juan, PR.

The waters of San Antonio Channel, Bahia de San Juan, eastward of longitude 66°05′45′′ W.

[CGD 7-83-29, 49 FR 48540, Dec. 13, 1984]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: OF A.I.S., A 

MINOR 

PETITION OF T.T.S., FATHER 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 530 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[House Document 116-17]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

116th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - House Document 116-17
 
    TERMINATING INDIA AS A BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRY UNDER THE 
               GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES PROGRAM

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

 A NOTIFICATION OF THE INTENTION TO TERMINATE THE DESIGNATION OF INDIA 
  AS A BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRY UNDER THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
 PREFERENCES PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(2); PUBLIC LAW 93-
  618, SEC. 502 (AS ADDED BY PUBLIC LAW 104-188, SEC. 1952(a)); (110 
                              STAT. 1920)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

March 5, 2019.--Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered 
                             to be printed

                                  ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

89-011                         WASHINGTON : 2019 
  

                                           The White House,
                                         Washington, March 4, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: In accordance with section 502(f)(2) of 
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 
2462(f)(2)), I am providing notice of my intent to terminate 
the designation of India as a beneficiary developing country 
under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program.
    I am taking this step because, after intensive engagement 
between the United States and the Government of India, I have 
determined that India has not assured the United States that it 
will provide equitable and reasonable access to the markets of 
India as set forth in section 502(c)(4) of the Trade Act (19 
U.S.C. 2462(c)(4)).
    I will continue to assess whether the Government of India 
is providing equitable and reasonable access to its markets, in 
accordance with the GSP eligibility criteria.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Donald J. Trump.

                                  [all]
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00129-CR

Corinne Chapa Klinzmann, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-2010-289, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Corinne Chapa Klinzmann has filed a notice of appeal from her conviction

following a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02

(West 2011). The district court has certified that this is a plea-bargain case, Klinzmann has no right

of appeal, and Klinzmann has waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Henson

Dismissed

Filed: August 28, 2012

Do Not Publish
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > The Share of Wage-Earning Women in Family Support

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*The Share of Wage-Earning Women in Family Support : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 30*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1923,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5353,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Internet
Cable Corporation
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001075202
<NAME>                   Internet Cable Corporation

<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       343,107
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,815,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                (251,878)
<INVENTORY>                                  277,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           2,578,920
<PP&E>                                     1,572,642
<DEPRECIATION>                              (528,079)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            10,764,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,168,321
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      10,122
<OTHER-SE>                                 8,511,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              10,764,840
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           2,567,129
<CGS>                                      1,929,261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,975,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (256)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            19,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,317,985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,317,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,317,985)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.13)



</TABLE>
§ 110.129 Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. ( a ) *Hilo Bay.* The waters of Hilo Bay enclosed by a line beginning at 19°43′55.5′′ N. latitude, 155°03′30′′ W. longitude; thence to 19°44′08′′ N. latitude, 155°04′19′′ W. longitude; thence to 19°43′51′′ N. latitude, 155°04′30′′ W. longitude; thence to 19°44′10′′ N. latitude, 155°05′29′′ W. longitude; thence along the shoreline to the beginning point. (Datum: OHD)
( b ) *Kuhio Bay.* The waters of Kuhio Bay enclosed by a line beginning at 19°44′13′′ N. latitude, 155°03′25′′ W. longitude; thence to 19°44′15′′ N. latitude, 155°03′25′′ W. longitude; thence along the shoreline to the beginning point. (Datum: OHD)
[CGD 76-186, 42 FR 62001, Dec. 8, 1977, as amended by CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33663, June 28, 1996. Redesignated by USCG-2018-0533, 85 FR 8173, Feb. 13, 2020]
### Water resources of Red River Parish, Louisiana

By: Roy NewcomeLeland Vernon Page

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1614

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 11**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 12**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 13**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 779.418 Grace period for computing portion of compensation representing commissions.

Where it is not practicably possible for the employer to compute the commission earnings of the employee for all workweeks ending in a prior representative period in time to determine the overtime pay obligations, if any, for the workweek or workweeks immediately following, 1 month of grace may be used by the retail or service establishment. This month of grace will not change the length of the current period in which the prior period is used as representative. It will merely allow an interval of 1 month between the end of the prior period and the beginning of the current period in order to permit necessary computations for the prior period to be made. For example, assume that the representative period used is the quarter-year immediately preceding the current quarter, and commissions for the prior period cannot be computed in time to determine the overtime pay obligations for the workweeks included in the first pay period in the current quarter. By applying a month of grace, the next earlier quarterly period may be used during the first month of the current quarter; and the quarter-year immediately preceding the current quarter will then be used for all workweeks ending in a quarter-year period which begins 1 month after the commencement of the current quarter. Thus, a January 1-March 31 representative period may be used for purposes of section 7(i) in a quarterly period beginning May 1 and ending July 31, allowing the month of April for necessary commission computations for the representative period. Once this method of computation is adopted it must be used for each successive period in like manner. The prior period used as representative must, of course, as in other cases, meet all the requirements of a representative period as previously explained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

LESTER LEONARD LOPEZ, AKA Lester 

Lopez, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10409 

D.C. No. 4:16-cr-01966-JGZ-JR-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Lester Leonard Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the sentence of 10 months and 33 days imposed upon revocation of 

probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez challenges the 33-day official detention adjustment applied by the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10409

district court pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(e). His arguments lack merit. Contrary 

to Lopez’s contention, section 7B1.3(e) is not in conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). 

The former is a Guidelines policy statement that the district court is required to 

consider in imposing a revocation sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(B), while 

the latter is a directive to the Attorney General that does not apply at sentencing. 

See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-34 (1992). Moreover, section 

7B1.3(e) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because revoked 

probationers are not similarly situated to defendants being sentenced for their 

underlying conviction for the first time. See Mayner v. Callahan, 873 F.2d 1300, 

1301 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The equal protection clause directs that all persons similarly 

circumstanced shall be treated alike.”) (internal quotations omitted)). 

AFFIRMED.
EX-4.24



 Exhibit 4.24 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 TO 

CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 POPULAR NORTH AMERICA CAPITAL TRUST II 

THIS Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Popular North America Capital Trust II (the “Trust”),
is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of the Trust, which was filed on September 5, 2003 (the “Certificate of Trust”), with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.)(the “Act”). 

1.        Name. The name of the statutory trust is Popular Capital Trust
II. 
 2.        Amendment to Certificate of
Trust.    The Certificate of Trust is hereby amended by amending and restating Section 2 thereof in its entirety as follows: 
 “2.       The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware is BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102,
Newark, Delaware 19711.” 
 3.        Effective
Date.    This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective upon filing. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed this Certificate of Amendment in accordance with Section 3811(a)(2) of the Act. 
  

			
	 BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE,
 not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee

		
	By:	  	 /s/ Vincent E. Sampson

		  	Name: Vincent E. Sampson
		  	Title: President









 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 

TO 

CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 POPULAR NORTH AMERICA CAPITAL TRUST III 

THIS Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Popular North America Capital Trust II (the “Trust”),
is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of the Trust, which was filed on September 5, 2003 (the “Certificate of Trust”), with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.)(the “Act”). 

1.        Name. The name of the statutory trust is Popular Capital Trust
III. 
 2.        Amendment to Certificate of
Trust.    The Certificate of Trust is hereby amended by amending and restating Section 2 thereof in its entirety as follows: 
 “2.       The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware is BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, 100 White Clay Center, Suite 102,
Newark, Delaware 19711.” 
 3.         Effective
Date.    This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective upon filing. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed this Certificate of Amendment in accordance with Section 3811(a)(2) of the Act. 
  

			
	 BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE,
 not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee

		
	By:	  	 /s/ Vincent E. Sampson

		  	Name: Vincent E. Sampson
		  	Title: President
#### The Eau Claire Lumber Company, Appellant, v. Howard.

Bill of Exceptions. Where it appeared that by an agreement of record the appellant was allowed thirty days after the adjournment of court within which to file a bill of exceptions, but nothing in the bill or the record proper showed when the bill was filed or when the court adjourned, or even with certainty that the bill was ever filed at *all; Held,*that this court could not consider it.

*Appeal from Tipton Common Pleas*Court.—Hon. E. L. Edwards, Judge.

Reversed.

*J. E. Wieting*and *W. P. Johnson*for appellant.

*518
      *J. E. Hazell*and *Draffen & Williams*for respondent.

Henry, J.

This was a suit in attachment, which, on motion of defendant, was dismissed for alleged irregularities in the filing of the affidavit and bond, and issuance of the writ of attachment. By an agreement of record, appellant was allowed thirty days after the adjournment of court within which to file a bill of exceptions, but nothing in the bill of exceptions or record proper shows when the bill was. filed or when the court adjourned, or that the bill of exceptions was filed at all, except that it may be inferred from the clerk’s certificate that it was part “of the record in the above cause, as the same appears in my office.5’ "We cannot, therefore, consistently, with former rulings of this court, consider the bill of exceptions, but are confined in our examination of the case to the record proper, and as by that the proceedings appear to have been regular, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.