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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7552

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN C. THOMPKINS, JR., a/k/a Benjamin Thompkins, a/k/a 

Benjie,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00339-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00303-REP)

Submitted: February 23, 2015 Decided: April 13, 2015

Before AGEE, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin C. Thompkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela 

Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin C. Thompkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Thompkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

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

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Edward Flores v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00295-CR

Trial court case number: 12-08-08659 CR

Trial court: 9th District Court of Montgomery County

A motion for rehearing in this cause was due on March 13, 2015. On March 30, 2015, 

Appellant timely filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. Tex. R. App. 

P. 49.8. The motion did not specify an amount of additional time requested. Fourteen additional 

days have passed since the motion for extension was filed and no motion for rehearing has yet 

been filed. 

Appellant’s motion for extension is granted and the motion for rehearing is now due 

April 21, 2015. No further motion for extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary 

circumstances. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 14, 2015
I am spearheading a group focused on using hemp in animal feed. Imported Canadian hemp oil is tested for THC using the AFVAN-SLMF-0029 standard and the US testing method for cannabinoids is AOAC official method 2018.11. Separate standards also exist for hemp seed protein powder. Based on the information I have gathered from predominant GLP labs in the USA, the AOAC methodology places the limit of detection (LD) at just over 8 PPM (w/w) for most common cannabinoids (>16 PPM for Δ8-THC) for oil and seed. AOAC methods are estimated to provide a level of quantification of about 25 ppm (w/w). Also, LQ in a dry extruded feed product is estimated to be 50 ppm (w/w) using AOAC methodology.

If LD is not < 10 ppm (w/w) then can a claim of zero THC be made and if not, what are the implications for interstate commerce where state laws outlaw THC at any level?

Regards,

Steve McGarrah

High Plains Nutrition, LLC
EXHIBIT (31)(a)
 
 
 
 Certification of Financial Statements and Internal Controls
 
 
 I, Craig O. Morrison, certify that:
  
 1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Borden Chemical, Inc. (BCI);
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements                made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial                condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
  4.  BCIs other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)                and 15d-15(e)) for BCI and have:
 
 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 BCI, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in      which this annual report is being prepared;
  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of BCIs disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and
  c.  Disclosed in this annual report any change in BCIs internal control over financial reporting that occurred during BCIs most recent fiscal quarter (BCIs fourth     fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, BCIs internal control over financial reporting;     and
 
 5.  BCIs other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to BCIs auditors and the audit                committee of BCIs board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  a.  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect BCIs ability                to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in BCIs internal control over financial                 reporting.
 
 
 
 Date: March 29, 2004
 
 /s/ Craig O. Morrison
 Craig O. Morrison
 Chief Executive Officer
(b) (4) (b) (4)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TUT SYSTEMS,
INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,131
<SECURITIES>                                    21,862
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (230)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,723
<PP&E>                                           3,458
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,689
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,050
<SALES>                                          8,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,901
<CGS>                                            5,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,007)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)


</TABLE>
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA

- 20 15

- 3929 Directorate ID : 2015

- SW

- 031

- AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4, EC130T2, AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS3 55E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 1,132 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason : The se actions are intended to detect cracks in a cross

- bar and prevent failure of the

cross

- bar and subse quent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs :

 Visually inspecting the cross

- bar would require 16.5 work

- hours for a labor

cost of about $1,403. No parts would be needed so that the cost for the U.S. fleet would

total $1,588,196 per inspection cycle.

 Re placing the cross

- bar would cost $1,630 for parts. No additional labor

costs would be needed.

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  )

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  )

Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  )

Project Engineer : Robert Grant
<pre>

EXHIBIT 10.19 - PROMISSORY NOTE DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2001 MADE BY THE
REGISTRANT IN FAVOR OF BLACK DOG RANCH, LLC

                             PROMISSORY NOTE

$142,546.02                                     September 30, 2001

For value received, $142,546.02, CONECTISYS CORPORATION ("MAKER") hereby
promises to pay to the order of  Black Dog Ranch, LLC., ("LENDER") on
demand, at 12215 Everglade Street, Los Angeles, California 90066 or other
place as may be designated in writing by the holder of this Promissory Note
(the "Note") the principal sum of One Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Eight
Hundred forty-six Dollars and 02/100 ($142,873.02) (the "PRINCIPAL"), which
unpaid Principal Sum shall bear interest at the rate of eighteen percent
(18%) per annum.  LENDER may from time to time during the duration of this
Note make further advances to MAKER up to an aggregate amount of
$500,000.00. Said Advances shall be added to the then current outstanding
balance and together shall comprise the total amount then due and owing
under the same terms and conditions of this Note. The unpaid Principal Sum
shall be due and payable on September 1, 2002.

The MAKER hereof waives presentment for payment, protest, notice of
nonpayment and of protest, and agrees to any extension of time of payment
and partial payments before, or at maturity, and if this Note or interest
thereon is not paid when due, or suit is brought, agrees to pay all
reasonable cost of collection, including attorney fees.

MAKER acknowledges that this Note evidences a business loan, and not a
consumer loan, not a consumer related loan defined in the Uniform Consumer
Credit. The laws of the State of California shall govern the form and
essential validity of this Note.  Time is of the essence with respect to
the MAKER'S obligations and agreements under this Note.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed as of the date herein above
set forth.

CONECTISYS CORPORATION

By:/s/ Robert A. Spigno
   Robert A. Spigno
   CEO
[491O-13-PJ

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

{Docket No. FAA-2009-1068; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-042-AD; Amendment

\ 1pJ-5''b

39-**; AD *V;;;"OI 0-D"6-03

RlN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B 19 (Regional Jet Series

100 & 440) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the

products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe

condition as: I

The heating capability of several Angle Of Attack (AOA) transducer

heating elements removed from in-service aircraft have been found to be

below the minimum requirement. Also, it was discovered that a large

number of AOA transducers repaired in an approved maintenance facility

were not calibrated accurately.

Inaccurate calibration of the AOA transducer and/or degraded ADA

transducer heating elements can result in early or late activation of the stall

warning, stick shaker and stick pusher by the Stall Protection_Computer

(SPC).

('.~

OUT""" ",'MDOL

OUTING SY""lOL

m...u.'Slo

.~

• • • • • • •
O~;PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 eFR Part 39

{Docket No. F AA-2009-1068; Din'ctorate Identifier 2009-NM-042-AI>; Amendment

RIN 2120-AA64 ,""..,•...~.

Airworthiness DirectivclI; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B 19 (Regional Jet Serics

100 & 440) Airplal1c~

AGENCY: Federal Aviatiun, Administrntion (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

,,~...,..

~'"nl>!r.;'''''''''--

;'1NF..·

....•.

information (MeAl) originaLed by all aviation authority of another country to identify

condition as:

ACTION: Final rule.

•••.• l~'~.•'''''''''

Ll'n~llc~rh

X~~tf,'j~•.•

.-~..

and correct an Llnsafe condition on an aviation product. The- MeAl describes the unsafe ,;> eM" ,

17wiO

products listed above. This AD resuJts fIom mandatory continuing ~lirwonhincss

SUMMARY: We arc superseding an existing sjrwon!lincss direclive (AD) faT the

':>II' ,,;.;:;:;~--

Tbc heating capability of several Angle Of Anack (AOA) tran:-duccr

healing elements removed from jn~scrvice aircraft: have been found to be

below the minimum requirement. Also, it was discovered that a Jaf!:;C

number of AOA transducers repaired in an approved maintenance facility

were not calibrated accurately.

n.•.,·,

lnaccurate calibration of the AOA transducer and/or degraded AOA

transducer heating. elements can result in early or latc activation of tbe stal.J

Vv<lming, stick shaker .md stick pusher by the Stall ProtectiDn Compute-r

(SPC). I

".".
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:15:11 AM

To: DistributionTransformers

‐ 2010

‐ STD

‐ 0048

Subject: 10 CFR Part 431 ; EERE

‐ 2010

‐ BT

‐ STD

‐ 0048

‐ RIN 1904

‐ AC04 ; Energy Conservation Standards for

Distribution Transformers: Public Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support

Document

Auto forwarded by a Rule

Dear Ms. Brenda Edwards

Here is document #1 referred in a previous email (see bellow) that was made available to the public by

WIPO today.

Document #2 will follow in a separate e

‐ mail since attached files are limited to 5Mb.

Regards,

Bruno Francoeur

Hydro

‐ Quebec Research Institute

‐ IREQ

1800 Lionel

‐ Boulet

Varennes, Quebec, Canada

J3X 1S1

Phone: 450

‐ 652

‐ 8988

Fax: 450

‐ 652

‐ 8181

Email: francoeur.bruno@ireq.ca

De : Francoeur, Bruno

Envoyé : 11 avril 2011 15:41

À : 'distributiontransformers

‐ 2010

‐ std

‐ 0048@ee.doe.gov'

Cc : Couture, Pierre

Objet : 10 CFR Part 431 ; EERE

‐ 2010

‐ BT

‐ STD

‐ 0048

‐ RIN 1904

‐ AC04 ; Energy Conservation Standards for

Distribution Transformers: Public Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support

Document

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

10 CFR Part 431

EERE

‐ 2010

‐ BT

‐ STD

‐ 0048

RIN 1904

‐ AC04

Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers: Public Meeting and Availability of the

Preliminary Technical Support DocumentDear Ms. Edwards,

We would like to inform you of two new technologies under development that are related to

distribution transformers and which will be partially disclosed to the public next month. They are:

1

‐ A new iron

‐ based amorphous alloy ribbon for making distribution transformer cores and having

enhanced magnetic properties while remaining ductile after annealing, and

2

‐ A new distribution transformer assembly made with the new alloy and method of making.

These new technologies will be disclosed in the following documents that have been filed for patents at

the World Intellectual Property Organization:

1

‐ PCT/CA2010/001844, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TREATING AN AMORPHOUS ALLOY RIBBON",

Inventors: Bruno Francoeur & Pierre Couture, Applicant: Hydro

‐ Quebec

2

‐ PCT/CA2010/001845, "ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER ASSEMBLY", Inventors: Bruno Francoeur & Pierre

Couture, Applicant: Hydro

‐ Quebec

You will be able to access them through the WIPO's website patent applications database

( http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ ) starting May 19, 2011.

We want to bring them at your attention for your present ongoing analysis towards amending or not the

current ruled efficiency standards.

Yours truly,

Bruno Francoeur

Hydro

‐ Quebec Research Institute

‐ IREQ

1800 Lionel

‐ Boulet

Varennes, Quebec, Canada

J3X 1S1

Phone: 450

‐ 652

‐ 8988

Fax: 450

‐ 652

‐ 8181

Email: francoeur.bruno@ireq.ca
```

[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]               
[Page 73156]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29no10-148]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 4728]

 
The Amended Designation of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT, LeT), aka 
Lashkar-e-Toiba, aka Lashkar-i-Taiba, aka al Mansoorian, aka al 
Mansooreen, aka Army of the Pure, aka Army of the Righteous, aka Army 
of the Pure and Righteous as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant 
to Section 219(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

    Based upon a review of the administrative record assembled in this 
matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, the Secretary of State has concluded that there is a 
sufficient factual basis to find that Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, also known 
under the aliases listed above, uses or has used additional aliases, 
namely, Falah-I-Insaniat Foundation, FiF, Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, 
Falah-e-Insaniyat, Falah-i-Insaniyat, Falah Insania, Welfare of 
Humanity, Humaniatarian Welfare Foundation, Human Welfare Foundation.
    Therefore, effective upon the date of publication in the Federal 
Register, the Secretary of State hereby amends the 2003 redesignation 
of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant to 
Sec.  219(b) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189(b)), to include the following 
new aliases and other possible transliterations thereof: Falah-I-
Insaniat Foundation, FiF, Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, Falah-e-
Insaniyat, Falah-i-Insaniyat, Falah Insania, Welfare of Humanity, 
Humaniatarian Welfare Foundation, Human Welfare Foundation.

    Dated: September 28, 2010.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-29807 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
NO. 01-14-01030-CV 

 

TARRIS WOODS 

 APPELLANT 

 V. 

SANDRA T. KENNER AND CHARLES E. TWYMON, JR. 

 APPELLEE 

 _______________________________________ 

Appellant=s Motion to Extend Time to file 

Appellant=s Brief 

 _______________________________________ 

 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Appellant, is Tarris Woods, asks the Court to 

extend the time to file its Brief. 

 A. Introduction 

1. Appellant is Tarris Woods; Apellees are Sandra T. 

Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr. 

2. No rules provides a deadline to file this motion 

to extend. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d) 

3. Appellees Sandra T. Kenner and Charles E. Twymon, Jr., 

is opposed to this motion. 

B. Argument & Authorities

4. The Court has the authority under Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.6 (d) to extend the time to file 

Appellant=s Brief. 

5. Appellant=s Brief was due on April 8, 2015

ACCEPTED

01-14-01030-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/14/2015 12:18:01 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/14/2015 12:18:01 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
6. Appellant request an additional 30 days to file 

Appellant=s Brief extending the time until May 14, 2015. 

7. No extension has been granted to extend the time to 

file Appellant=s Brief. 

C. Conclusion 

8. Appellant=s request an additional 30 days to file 

Appellant=s Brief extending the time until May 14, 2015. 

D. Prayer 

9. For these reasons, Appellant=s asks the Court to grant 

an extension of time to file Appellant=s Brief until May 14, 

2015. 

Respectfully submitted, 

__/S/_Douglas T. Godinich _ 

Douglas T. Godinich 

Texas Bar No 24007244 

2727 Broadway 

Galveston, Texas 77550 

Tel: (409) 763-2454 

Fax: (409) 763-4309 

Attorney for Appellant Tarris Woods 
Certificate of Conference 

I certify that I have conferred with Thomas W. McQuage by 

telephone and Mr. McQuage is unopposed to Appellant’s Motion. 

 

 _/S/ Douglas T Godinich_ ___ 

Douglas T. Godinich 

 
Certificate of Service 

A copy of this notice is being filed with the appellate 

clerk in accordance with rule 25.1(e) of the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure. I certify that a true copy of this Motion to Extend 

Time to File Appellant=s Brief was served in accordance with 

rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on each party 

or the attorney for such party indicated below by method 

indicated. 

 _/s/ Douglas T. Godinich ______ 

 Douglas T. Godinich 

By FAX TRANSMITTAL

Thomas W. McQuage 

P.O. Box 16894 

Galveston, Texas 77552 

TEL: 409-762-1104 

mcquage@swbell.net
Exhibit 10.20
   
  Participant:
    
    NAMEDate of Grant:
    
    January 1, 2009Incentive Award:
    
    [$     ]
  1. Grant of Award
 2. Performance Conditions.
 Performance Period
 Relative Performance
 (c) Performance Criteria
 - 1 -




---



##### 



Determination of Final Awards
 Delivery of Incentive Award
 Non-Transferability.
 Termination of Employment
 Forfeiture of All Rights
 Forfeiture of Pro-Rated Rights
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Additional Forfeiture Provisions
 Definitions
  th
 Designation of Beneficiary
 ithholding of Income and Other Taxes.
 . Legal Compliance
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Miscellaneous Provisions.
 Effect on Other Employee Benefit Plans
 No Employment Rights
 Entire Agreement; Amendment
 Governing Law
 Notices
   Compliance with Laws
 Binding Agreement; Assignment
 - 4 -




---



##### 



Counterparts
 Headings
 Further Assurances
 Severability
  BOWNE & CO., INC.By:David J. SheaParticipant:Name:Signature:
 - 5 -




---



##### 



- 6 -