alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7274
CHARLES GILBERT SHEPPARD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-94-482-2) Submitted: November 14, 1995 Decided: May 21, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gilbert Sheppard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees,Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. While some language in the district court's order raised a question as to the standard of review employed by the court, we are confident that, based on the district court's representation and the order itself, the court conducted the required de novo review of the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, although we grant a certificate of probable cause to appeal, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sheppard v. Angelone , No. CA-94-482-2 (E.D. Va. July 21, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
August 1 9 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSEPH EDWARD SPILLE RS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00331

- CR

NO. 14

- 13

- 00332

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                             871
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,217
<INVENTORY>                                     95,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,220
<PP&E>                                         146,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,629
<BONDS>                                          2,374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,185
<SALES>                                        280,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,800
<CGS>                                          221,317
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    68
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,393)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCCARRON CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-1709JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 20th day of June, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01709-JLR Document 21 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INSPECT

SCENE OF RACKETEERING ACT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL, 

RODNEY ROLLNESS, 

JOSHUA BINDER, 

RICKY JENKS, and

PAUL FOSTER

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

INSPECT SCENE OF RACKETEERING

ACT 1

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Rollness, Fabel, Binder and Jenks’

“Motion to Inspect Scene of Racketeering Act 1” (Dkt. #278). Defendants seek Court

authorization to inspect and photograph the apartment where the crime described in

Racketeering Act 1 is alleged to have taken place. 

The Court concludes that defendants have failed to offer a sufficient factual or legal basis

for their request. The apartment in question is a private residence and is not under the “control”

of the Government. In fact, Government agents have only been inside the residence once and

defendants have been provided photographs that resulted from that visit. Defendants have

offered no reason why these photographs are insufficient for the purpose of investigating the

allegation at issue in Racketeering Act 1, which has little to do with the physical layout of

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 454 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INSPECT

SCENE OF RACKETEERING ACT 1

-2-

apartment in question. Defendants’ motion (Dkt. #278) is therefore DENIED. 

DATED this 30th day of January, 2007

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 454 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2
|   | 1. | The Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: August 11, 2011 | By:  /s/ Terry Fields                                                                |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Terry Fields, Principal Executive and Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |

----
**Exhibit 10.49**

 

**SMART & FINAL INC.**

 

**NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN**

 

**(FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PLAN)**

 

This First Amendment (this “First Amendment”), effective as of February 17, 2004, amends the Smart & Final Inc. Non-Employee Director StockPlan (Amended and Restated) (the “Plan”), as set forth below. Except as specifically amended by this First Amendment, the Plan remains unmodified and in full force and effect. All capitalized terms used in this First Amendment and notspecifically defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Plan. 

 

1. Section 2.11 of the Plan. The definition of “Non-Employee Director” in Section 2.11 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read, in its entirety, as follows: 

 

2.11 *“Non-Employee Director”*means anyDirector who is not and, for at least three (3) years prior to becoming a Director, has not been (i) an employee of the Company, or (ii) an employee of Casino Guichard-Perrachon, S.A. or its affiliates. 

 

2. Section 4 of the Plan. Section 4 of the Plan, Automatic Award ofShares, is hereby amended and restated to read, in its entirety, as follows: 

 

4. AUTOMATIC AWARD OF SHARES 

 

An award of Shares shall be automatically made on the Award Date to each Non-Employee Director who is serving as such on the Award Date. Each award shall comprise that number of Shares equal to the quotient of $20,000divided by the Fair Market Value of a Share on the Award Date; *provided*, *however*, if this award calculation results in fractional Shares, such award shall be rounded down to the nearest whole Share number and cash shall be paid in lieuof fractional shares, and *provided*, *further*, if at any time there are not sufficient Shares available under this Plan to permit the award of Shares to be made to all Non-Employee Directors eligible therefor, then the award of Shares tobe made to all such eligible Non-Employee Directors under this Section 4 shall be reduced pro rata (to zero if necessary) so as to not exceed the number of Shares available for award under this Plan and cash shall be paid in lieu of the difference.In the event that any Shares awarded under this Section 4 are newly issued by the Company, the Non-Employee Director receiving such Shares shall pay to the Company, in cash, an amount equal to the par value of such Shares. Any Shares awarded underthis Plan must be held by such Non-Employee Director at least six months after the Award Date or, in the case of Shares awarded on May 10, 1996, six months after the date of the stockholder approval of this Plan, as described in Section 10.1 of thisPlan.
H. Res. 540 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 12, 2007. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Ms. Sutton (to rank 

immediately after Mr. Johnson of Georgia). 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Spotlight

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General October 2011 OIG-12-02 

(U) Additional Department Oversight Can Improve

DHS' Intelligence Systems Security Program

Unclassified Summary 

We reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS') enterprise-wide security program and practices for Top

Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information intelligence systems. Pursuant to the Federal Information Security Management Act of

2002, we reviewed the Department’s security management, implementation, and evaluation of its intelligence activities, including its

policies, procedures, and system security controls for enterprise-wide intelligence systems. In doing so, we assessed the

Department’s assessment and authorization, incident response and reporting, information security training, plan of action and

milestones, continuous monitoring, and contingency planning programs.

The Department continued to improve its enterprise-wide information security management program for intelligence systems. DHS

has developed information security policies and procedures and implemented effective security controls on intelligence systems.

While system controls have been strengthened, more oversight is needed to ensure the security program’s policies are implemented.

We have concerns with the oversight of component plans of actions and milestones, verification of the intelligence systems

inventory, establishment of a department-wide continuous monitoring program, and development of an information security training

program for intelligence personnel. Fieldwork was conducted from April through July 2011. We made four recommendations to the

Chief Information Officer of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

For Further Information:

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at (202)254-4100, or email us at DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@dhs.gov
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Cancer Institute, November 13, 2023, 10 a.m. to November 14, 2023, 1:45 p.m., National Institute of Health, Building 31, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room C, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 28, 2023, FR Doc 2023-21147, 88 FR 66861.                

This meeting notice is being amended to change the meeting type from partially closed to closed. Due to scheduling difficulties, there will no longer be an open session of the meeting. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 28, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21974 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 686 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 686

 Condemning personal attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism of 
        those with distinguished military service to our Nation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2007

Ms. Shea-Porter submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Condemning personal attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism of 
        those with distinguished military service to our Nation.

Whereas the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans 
        deserve to be honored for their service, supported in their duties, and 
        defended when their patriotism is attacked;
Whereas in 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran and the 
        recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, and a triple amputee had his 
        courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was 
        visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;
Whereas in 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the 
        recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple 
        Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country; 
        and
Whereas in 2007, a Senator from Nebraska who is a Vietnam veteran and the 
        recipient of two Purple Hearts and many other military decorations and 
        honors, was personally attacked and had his patriotism called into 
        question: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) reaffirms its strong support for all of the men and 
        women of the United States Armed Forces;
            (2) strongly condemns all such personal attacks on the 
        honor, integrity and patriotism of those with distinguished 
        military service to our Nation; and
            (3) encourages all individuals and organizations to refrain 
        from such personal attacks and to conduct the public discourse 
        with civility and with the highest respect for those who have 
        served our country honorably.
                                 <all>
```
#### John St alter, Appellant, v Prudential Insurance Company of America, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[632 NYS2d 602]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated October 2, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated as against the defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America.

On October 31, 1986, the plaintiff, John Staffer, was an employee of the third-party defendant, James M. Inman Construction Corporation. While working on a construction project, the plaintiff lost control of a cart that he was pushing down an exterior ramp at the rear of a Macy’s Department Store located in the Smithhaven Mall. His injury occurred when he tripped over a bump or "crown” on the ramp.

Macy’s had leased its premises from Winston Mall, Inc., in *5781966. That lease was assigned by Winston Mall, Inc. to Brook-smith Properties in 1975, whose interests were transferred to the defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America (hereinafter Prudential) on or about June 30, 1986.

Prudential moved for summary judgment on the ground that Macy’s was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the ramp where the accident occurred. The Supreme Court granted the motion and we now reverse.

It is well settled that in order to grant summary judgment, it must clearly appear that no material issue of fact has been presented. Issue finding rather than issue determination is the key. Since summary judgment is the procedural equivalent of a trial, any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue, or where the material issue is "arguable”, requires the denial of summary judgment (see, *Salino v IPT Trucking,*203 AD2d 352; *Museums at Stony Brook v Village of Patchogue Fire Dept.,*146 AD2d 572).

Generally, an out-of-possession landlord’s liability for injuries caused by defective or dangerous conditions upon leased premises hinges on whether the landlord has retained sufficient control over the premises to be held to have constructive notice of the condition. Control of the premises may be established by a number of factors, including a landlord’s reservation of the right to enter and repair, which may be deemed to constitute sufficient retention of control and to provide the landlord with constructive notice of a defective condition, thereby subjecting the landlord to liability *(see, Hecht v Vanderbilt Assocs.,*141 AD2d 696; *see also, Putnam v Stout,*38 NY2d 607).

A review of the entire lease between Prudential and Macy’s reveals a definition of common areas, which raises issues of fact as to the joint responsibility of Prudential and Macy’s for the maintenance of the exterior ramp where this accident occurred. Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2

STOCK SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

is made and entered as of April 02, 2018

 

 

 

Seller: Leo Members, Inc. 

Address: ES Tower 6F, Teheranro 52 Gil 17, Gangnamgu, Seoul Korea. 

 

Buyer: Young-hee Kim

Address: 31, Sangmo-ro 10-gil, Gumi-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea. 

 

 

AGREEMENT

 

The Seller desires to sell, and the Buyer desires to purchase, Three Hundred (300) shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of Leo Motors Factory 2, Inc. on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.  

 

In consideration of, and in express reliance upon, the representations and warranties of the Seller and the Buyer in this Agreement, the Seller agrees to sell, assign and transfer to the Buyer, all of its right, title and interest in and to the Share at the per sharers price of KRW 5,000, for an aggregate purchase price of 1,500,000 KRW ("Purchase Amount") for the Shares. 

 

The Purchase Amount shall be paid by cash or wire transfer to bank account designated by the Seller within Ten (10) days from the Agreement established.  

 

 

Leo Members, Inc. ("Seller")

 

By:                                                                       

 

/s/ Shi Chul Kang

__________________________                      

Name:Shi Chul Kang                               

Title:CEO                                          

Date:          April 02, 2018

 

Young-hee Kim ("Buyer ")

 

By:                                                                       

 

/s/ Young-hee Kim

__________________________                      

Name:     Young-hee Kim 

Date:         April 02, 2018