alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40793 Summary Calendar

BRANDON C. SAMPLE, and on behalf of all similarly situated federal prisoners in the United States and its territories, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CV-265

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Brandon Sample, federal prisoner # 33949-037, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights and Administrative Procedures Act (APA) action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Sample filed suit against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to declare its promulgation and enforcement of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) as exceeding the scope of its authority, and he sought to enjoin the BOP’sNo. 03-40793 -2- enforcement of the IFRP against him and similarly situated prisoners. Sample was convicted of numerous counts of mail and securities fraud and, in addition to an imprisonment term, was sentenced to pay $275,000 in restitution and $1800 in special

assessment. Sample argues that the district court did not review his claim under the APA and that he is not raising a challenge to his sentence but, rather, a challenge to the BOP’s authority to promulgate and apply the IFRP. We review a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 dismissal for failure to state a claim under the same de novo standard of review applicable to dismissals made pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(6). Harris v. Hegmann , 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). We must determine if, taking Sample's allegations as true, no relief could be granted based on those allegations. Id. A favorable ruling in Sample’s instant case would thwart the effectiveness of his sentence. There has been no determination that Sample’s sentence is invalid. His district court complaint is thus barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim is

AFFIRMED.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5376 

To prohibit sales and the issuance of licenses for the export of certain 

defense articles to the United Arab Emirates, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit sales and the issuance of licenses for the export 

of certain defense articles to the United Arab Emirates, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON SALES AND EXPORTS OF COV4 ERED DEFENSE ARTICLES TO THE UNITED 

5 ARAB EMIRATES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of the en7 actment of this Act, the President may not sell or issue 

8 a license for the export of covered defense articles under 

9 the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) 

10 to the United Arab Emirates, or any agency or instrumenVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:59 Dec 05, 2024 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S5376.IS S5376

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5376 IS

1 tality of the United Arab Emirates, until the President 

2 certifies to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

3 Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 

4 House of Representatives that the United Arab Emirates 

5 is not providing materiel support to the Rapid Support 

6 Forces in Sudan. 

7 (b) COVERED DEFENSE ARTICLES DEFINED.—In 

8 this section, the term ‘‘covered defense articles’’ means ar9 ticles listed under Category I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, 

10 XIV, XVI, XVII, or XVIII of the United States Munitions 

11 List in part 121 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Total U.S. Exports to  Anguilla

Data in Thousand Dollars 

Data For  JUN. 1999

|Group              | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | Year to Date 6/1998 | Year to Date 6/1999 | % Change | Year Ending 6/1998 | Year Ending 6/1999 | % Change | % Share
|------------------ | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ------------------- | ------------------- | -------- | ------------------ | ------------------ | -------- | -------
|TEXTILES & APPAREL | 237  | 327  | 160  | 105  | 44                  | 65                  | 48.67    | 95                 | 126                | 32.19    | 0
# EUR-Lex - 12007L/AFI/DCL/41 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12007L/AFI/DCL/41

**Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 - A. Declarations concerning provisions of the Treaties - 41. Declaration on Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union **

*
Official Journal 306 , 17/12/2007 P. 0262 - 0262 *

41. Declaration on Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference declares that the reference in Article 308(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to objectives of the Union refers to the objectives as set out in Article 2(2) and (3) of the Treaty on European Union and to the objectives of Article 3(5) of the said Treaty with respect to external action under Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is therefore excluded that an action based on Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would only pursue objectives set out in Article 2(1) of the Treaty on European Union. In this connection, the Conference notes that in accordance with Article 15b(1) of the Treaty on European Union, legislative acts may not be adopted in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

--------------------------------------------------
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Highlights ofCharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC national compensation survey**
 
2000 | 2001 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2007 | 2010
 
SuDoc Number:L 2.71/8:9450/
Item Number:0768-P-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000876400
 
February 13, 2020
# EUR-Lex - 12008E346 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E346

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SEVEN: GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS - Article 346 (ex Article 296 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0194 - 0194 *

Article 346

(ex Article 296 TEC)

1. The provisions of the Treaties shall not preclude the application of the following rules:

(a) no Member State shall be obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security;

(b) any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the internal market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.

2. The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, make changes to the list, which it drew up on 15 April 1958, of the products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply.

--------------------------------------------------
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
Document

Exhibit 10.2


FOX FACTORY, INC.
AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(Richard T. Winters)




This AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), entered into as of August 5, 2020 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Fox Factory, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), and Richard T. Winters, an individual (“Executive”), amends that certain Employment Agreement dated as of June 29, 2019, by and between the Company and Executive (the “Employment Agreement”).  All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Employment Agreement.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, Executive and the Company hereto desire to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and the respective mutual agreements contained herein, the parties to this Amendment agree as follows:
Section 1.  Amendments. The Employment Agreement is amended, effective as of the Effective Date, as follows: 
      a. Section 3(b) is AMENDED in its entirety to read as follows: 
“(b) Performance Bonus (60% Target).  Executive will be eligible to receive a bonus (the “Performance Bonus”) as structured, calculated and determined by Fox Factory Holding Corp.’s (the “Parent”) Board of Directors Compensation Committee (“Compensation Committee”). In order to encourage and reward longevity and retention, except as otherwise specifically provided in Section 4(b) hereof, Executive shall not be entitled to any Performance Bonus unless Executive is employed by the Company on the last day of the fiscal year for which the Performance Bonus is based.  If Executive has been on leave and not actively working for thirteen (13) or more weeks in the fiscal year, Executive’s Performance Bonus will be reduced pro rata based on the number of days Executive was on leave during the fiscal year. 
Section 2.  Effect on Employment Agreement.  On and after the Effective Date, each reference in the Employment Agreement to “this Agreement”, “hereunder”, “hereof”, “herein” or words of similar import shall mean and be a reference to the Employment Agreement as amended hereby.  Except as specifically modified by the terms of this Amendment, all of the terms, provisions, covenants, warranties and agreements contained in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified.


Section 3. Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be construed under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Georgia.  
Section 4. Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original copy of this Amendment and all of which, when taken together, will be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.


1






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first above written.


The Company




Fox Factory, Inc.
a California corporation 


By: /s/ Michael C. Dennison
Name: Michael C. Dennison
Title: Chief Executive Officer




The EXECUTIVE 




/s/ Richard T. Winters
Richard T. Winters


2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Salon Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Elizabeth Hambrecht, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



                                          /s/ Elizabeth Hambrecht
                                          -----------------------
          November 13, 2006               Elizabeth Hambrecht
                                          Chief Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 31.2
Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
(Chief Financial Officer)
       a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:  September 23, 2008
    /s/ M.C. MackeyM.C. MackeyChief Financial Officer
§ 218.26 Objection time periods. ( a ) *Time to file an objection.* Written objections, including any attachments, must be filed with the reviewing officer within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of the EA or final EIS in the newspaper of record or the publication date of the notice in the Federal Register when the Chief is the responsible official (see § 218.7(c)). It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure that their objection is received in a timely manner.
( b ) *Time for responding to an objection.* The reviewing officer must issue a written response to the objector(s) concerning their objection(s) within 45 days following the end of the objection filing period. The reviewing officer has the discretion to extend the time for up to 30 days when he or she determines that additional time is necessary to provide adequate response to objections or to participate in resolution discussions with the objector(s).
[No. 5003.]

#### Eldridge Bartlett *v.*The State.

Assault With Intent to Murder —Indictment must allege the specific *intent, when*such intent is a material fact in the description of the offense to be charged. It is as essential to charge the specific intent as it is to prove it, in eases of assault with intent to murder. See the opinion for an indictment *held*insufficient to charge an assault to murder, because it totally fails to charge the intent.

Appeal from the District Court of Falls. Tried below before the Hon. Eugene Williams.

The conviction in this case yas for an assault with intent to murder one James H. Cluck, in Falls county, Texas, on the eighteenth day of September, 1883. A term of two years in the penitentiary was the penalty assessed against the appellant.

*Oltorf & Harlan. J. W. Stevenson*and *W. Shelton,*for the - appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

As set forth in the indictment, the charge is (omitting formal allegations) that defendant “did then *501and there, wilfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, make an assault in and upon the person of one James H. Cluck, then and there of his malice aforethought, him, the said Cluck, to then and there murder, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”

Opinion delivered June 9, 1886.

Manifestly the object of the pleader was to charge “ an assault with intent to murder,” but it is equally manifest that he has failed to do so, because he has omitted to charge directly and positively the “ *intent.”*“ Where a particular intent is a material fact in the description of the offense, it must be stated in the indictment.” (Code Crim. Proc, Art. 423; Morris v. The State, 13 Texas Ct. App., 65; Black v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 124; see also Willson’s Crim. Forms, No. 357, p. 161, and authorities cited.) It is as essential to allege the specific intent as it is essential to prove it in cases of assault with intent to murder.

Because the indictment in this case is fatally defective, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

June 9, 2021

No. 04

- 19

- 00503

- CV

CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C. , Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., Jamestown Resources, L.L.C., and OOGC American LLC, Appellants

v.

7K INVESTMENTS, LTD. , et al

. , Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court
, La Salle County, Texas Trial Court No. 16

- 03

- 00030

- CVL Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. , Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is REINSTATED

. T he district court’s “Corrected Final Judgment” is VACATED without regard to its merits

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(2)(B). This case is REMAND ED to the district court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement

. See id. C osts are taxed against the appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

It is so ORDERED on June 9, 2021

.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of June, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.2

     Statement Under Oath of Principal Executive Officer Regarding Facts and
                 Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings


I, G. Michael Durkin state and attest that:

     (1) To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered reports
         of PepsiAmericas, Inc., and, except as corrected or supplemented in a
         subsequent covered report:

         o  no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material fact
            as of the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case
            of a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the
            date on which it was filed); and

         o  no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to make
            the statements in the covered report, in light of the circumstances
            under which they were made, not misleading as of the end of the
            period covered by such report (or in the case of a report on Form
            8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date on which it was
            filed).

     (2) I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the PepsiAmericas'
         Audit Committee.

     (3) In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or
         before the date of this statement, is a "covered report":

         o  Annual Report on Form 10-K of PepsiAmericas, Inc., for the fiscal
            year ended December 29, 2001, filed on March 25, 2002;

         o  all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K and all definitive
            proxy materials of PepsiAmericas, Inc., filed with the Commission
            subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K identified above; and

         o  and amendments to any of the foregoing.





                                                 Subscribed and sworn to
-------------------------------------------      before me this ____ day of
Name:  G. Michael Durkin                         ______________ 2002.
Date:

                                                 Notary Public

                                                 My Commission Expires:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1786

In re: MICHAEL RANKINS , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 2:14

- cr - 00003

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Rankins , Petitioner Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion seeking DNA testing of certain evidence from his criminal proceeding, 18 U.S.C. § 3600(B) (2 012. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court entered an order denying Rankins’ motion on August 12, 2019. Accordingly, because the district court ha s recently decided Rankins’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED