alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00939

- CV

Cathy Cancel MALAVE

, Appellant

v.

Alberto MALAVE

, Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CI11207 Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 16, 2019

DISMISSED

Appellant Cathy Malave filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion states the trial

court granted her motion for new trial, and her appeal is moot.

Absent a final order, we lack jurisdiction in this appeal. Appellant’s motion to dismiss this

appeal is granted; this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2), 42.3(a), 43.2(f);

Caballero v. Heart of Tex

. Pizz a, L.L.C. , 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2001, no

pet.) (en banc) (per curiam).

PER CURIAM
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) (Act) the Department of Labor (Department) herein presents summaries of negative determinations on reconsideration regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers by case (TA-W-) number regarding negative determinations issued during the period of February 13, 2011 through October 21, 2011. Notices of negative determinations were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and on the Department's Web site, as required by Section 221 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2271). As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA), all petitions that were denied during this time period were automatically reopened. The reconsideration investigation revealed that the following workers groups have not met the certification criteria under the provisions of TAAEA.                

After careful review of the additional facts obtained, the following negative determinations on reconsideration have been issued.

## TA-W-80,160; Pension Systems Corp., Sherman Oaks, CA

                    I hereby certify that the aforementioned negative determinations on reconsideration were issued on                     *February 16 2012.*                     These determinations are available on the Department's Web site at                     *tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm*                     under the searchable listing of determinations or by calling the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance toll-free at 888-365-6822.                

 Dated February 21, 2012.

Del Min Amy Chen,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2012-5389 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT RUSSELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Drip,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:95-cr-00045-HEH-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2021 Decided: October 18, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Russell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Russell Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States 

v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order. 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
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. III (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Pruitt, 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; and





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





February 25, 2011
/s/ Michael D. PruittMichael D. PruittPrincipal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>          DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                         993,437
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                  287,146
<ALLOWANCES>                    45,261
<INVENTORY>                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  0
<PP&E>                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               1,437,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             0
<BONDS>                           0
<COMMON>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<OTHER-SE>                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 1,437,372
<SALES>                     37,116,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            37,116,725
<CGS>                        2,183,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                2,183,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>            12,327,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>             22,606,307
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         22,606,307
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>             89,814,878
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>               112,421,185
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   444.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                   444.19



</TABLE>
Key Executive Employment Protection Agreement
  1.
    
    Section 1(b) is amended in its entirety to read (relevant changes are in italics):Termination of Employment Following a Potential Change of Control. Notwithstanding
Section 1(a), if (i) the Executives employment is terminated by the Company without
Cause (as defined in Section 2) after the occurrence of a Potential Change of Control and
prior to the occurrence of a Change of Control and (ii) a Change of Control occurs
within one year of such termination, provided such Change of Control constitutes a change in
control event within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the Code), the Executive shall be deemed, solely for purposes of determining his
rights under this Agreement, to have remained employed until the date such Change of Control
occurs and to have been terminated by the Company without Cause immediately after this
Agreement becomes effective.2.
    
    The first sentence of the last paragraph of Section 3(a) is amended in its entirety to read
(relevant changes are in italics):The Earned Salary and Severance Amount shall be paid in a single lump sum within ten
business days following the Executives Date of Termination or, if payment is required to be
delayed pursuant to Section 409A of the Code because the Executive is deemed to be a
specified employee within the meaning of Section 409A, within tenbusiness days
immediately following the six-month anniversary of the Executives Date of Termination.




---



##### 



3.
    
    Section 3(b) is amended by adding to the end thereof (immediately prior to the last period):; provided, however, that to the extent that the benefits provided under any such Benefit
Plan are not medical benefits and the provision of such benefits would not be exempt from
Federal income taxation (the Taxable Other Benefits), the Executive will reimburse the
Company for the full cost of such Taxable Other Benefits for the first six months following
the Executives termination of employment (unless and solely to the extent the Executive
elects, within ten business days of the date of the Executives termination, to forego
receipt of such Taxable Other Benefits under this Agreement); and provided further that ,
notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, in no event shall the benefits
provided under this clause (b) during any calendar year affect the benefits provided under
this clause (b) during any other calendar year and, to the extent any reimbursement or
payment is made in respect of, or in lieu of the provision of, Benefit Plans, such
reimbursement or payment shall be made no later than December 31 following the calendar year
in which the expense is incurred or the benefits would otherwise have been provided4.
    
    All other provisions of the KEEPA shall remain unchanged.
 Sincerely,
LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC./s/Name:
    James B. GattoniTitle:
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
 
 2
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1



SOLECTRON CORPORATION




2002 STOCK PLAN




AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT




     This Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into as of October 11,
2006 by and between Solectron Corporation (the “Company”) and Michael Cannon (the “Purchaser”).



     WHEREAS, the Purchaser had previously executed a Restricted Stock Agreement dated as of
November 22, 2005 (the “RSA”) to purchase 750,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock (the
“Restricted Stock”) pursuant to a Notice of Grant of Stock Option and subject to the terms and
conditions of the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved an amendment to the vesting
provisions for the Restricted Stock.



     NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:



     1. The second, third and fourth sentences of Exhibit A-4 to the RSA are hereby deleted in
their entirety and the following sentence shall replace the second sentence:




“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Restricted Stock shall fully vest and the
Reacquisition Right with respect to all Unreleased Shares will lapse on November
22, 2008.”



     2. Except as set forth above, all other terms, provisions and conditions of the RSA shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



     3. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the RSA.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and date
first set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	PURCHASER:

	 	 	 	SOLECTRON CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature

	 	 	 	By	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Print Name

	 	 	 	Title	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:                                                             , 2006

	 	 	 	Date:                                                             , 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7646

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

SCOTT LEWIS RENDELMAN, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-

cr-00331-RWT-1; 8:08-cv-01832-RWT) 

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, 

James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Scott Lewis Rendelman seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as 

premature. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rendelman 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
exv10w4



 





Exhibit 10.4




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

HOUSTON EXPLORATION COMPANY

CHANGE OF CONTROL PLAN



This Second Amendment to the Houston Exploration Company Change of Control Plan, as
previously amended by an Amendment dated May 17, 2002 (the “Plan”), is made on
behalf of the Houston Exploration Company (the “Company”), the sponsor of the
Plan, and is effective as of immediately prior to, and contingent upon, the effective time
of the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, proposed to be entered
into by and among the Company, Forest Oil Corporation, a New York corporation (
“Parent”), and MJCO Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.



1. Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following
new Section 5(a):





(a) The Plan Administrator shall be the Company; provided that the
Company may delegate some or all of its duties under this Plan to one or more
officers of the Company as from time to time may be designated by the Company in
its sole discretion. The Company shall fully indemnify each officer so designated
against any and all liabilities arising by reason of any act or failure to act
made in good faith pursuant to the provisions of the Plan, including expenses
reasonably incurred in defense of any claims relating thereto.


2. Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing all references to the VP-CAO with
references to the Plan Administrator.



3. Attachment D of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following
new Attachment D:




OUTPLACEMENT SERVICES





In the event of a Change of Control, an Eligible Employee who is subject to a
Qualified Termination shall be entitled to receive (i) if such Eligible Employee
is party to an employment agreement with the Company immediately prior to the
Qualified Termination, the services of an executive outplacement firm selected by
such Eligible Employee, and approved by the Plan Administrator, for up to 12
months from the Qualified Termination, and (ii) if such Eligible Employee is not
party to an employment agreement with the Company immediately prior to the
Qualified Termination, the services of an outplacement firm selected and approved
by the Plan Administrator for up to three months from the Qualified Termination.
The Company will pay the outplacement firm directly for these services.


4. Except as specifically modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain
in effect.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE HOUSTON EXPLORATION COMPANY

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Roger B. Rice	 
	 	 	Name:  	Roger B. Rice 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Senior Vice President - Administration
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1778 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1778

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
                 generic drugs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 14, 2009

  Mrs. Shaheen (for herself and Mr. Vitter) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
                 generic drugs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Affordable Medicines 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LABELING CHANGES.

    Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 355(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(10) If the proposed labeling of a drug that is the subject of an 
application under this subsection is different from the labeling of the 
listed drug at the time the Secretary evaluates the application under 
this subsection, the drug that is the subject of such application 
shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, be eligible for 
approval and shall not be considered misbranded under section 502 if--
            ``(A) a revision to the labeling of the listed drug has 
        been approved by the Secretary within 60 days of the expiration 
        of the patent or exclusivity period that otherwise prohibited 
        the approval of the drug under this subsection;
            ``(B) the Secretary has not determined the applicable text 
        of the labeling for the drug that is the subject the 
        application under this subsection at the time of expiration of 
        such patent or exclusivity period;
            ``(C) the labeling revision described under subparagraph 
        (A) does not include a change to the `Warnings' section of the 
        labeling;
            ``(D) the Secretary does not deem that the continued 
        presence in commerce of the labeling of the listed drug (as in 
        effect before the revision described under subparagraph (A)) 
        adversely impacts the safe use of the drug;
            ``(E) the sponsor of the application under this subsection 
        agrees to submit revised labeling of the drug that is the 
        subject of such application not later than 60 days after the 
        notification of any changes to such labeling required by the 
        Secretary; and
            ``(F) such application otherwise meets the applicable 
        requirements for approval under this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1883 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on iminodisuccinate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on iminodisuccinate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMINODISUCCINATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in heading 9902.29.83 by striking the date 

8 in the effective period column, and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

9 2011’’; and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1883 IS

1 (2) in heading 9902.38.10 by striking the date 

2 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

3 2011’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

6 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Vital Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2010 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: January 20, 2011


By: /s/ Michael Levine
----------------------------------------
Michael Levine, Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Executive Officer, President,
Chairman of the Board and Director



By: /s/ Michael Levine
----------------------------------------
Michael Levine, Chief Financial Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer

<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 5, 2018

d0703

Order 

Clerk

July 5, 2018

156604

In re B. HADD, Minor. SC: 156604

COA: 337097

Bay CC Family Division:

14-011751-NA

_______________________________________/

By order of October 27, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the September 

12, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

In re Hill, Minors (Docket No. 155152). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having 

been denied in In re Hill, Minors on April 6, 2018, 501 Mich 1047 (2018), the application 

is again considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of In re Ferranti, Minor

(Docket No. 157907-8) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in 

that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we 

ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.