alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed: June 5, 2002

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6333

(CR-95-370, CA-02-152)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

Warren Thomas, Sr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed May 9, 2002, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is

corrected to read “Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit

Judges.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WARREN THOMAS, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-95-370, CA-02-152)

Submitted: April 26, 2002 Decided: May 9, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Thomas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* A panel of this court recently heard argument in United

States v. Emmanuel, No. 00-7578, on the issue of whether a district

court must notify a pro se litigant that it intends to construe a

filing that is not so labeled as a § 2255 motion and afford the

movant the opportunity to withdraw the motion in order to avoid the

restrictions on second or successive motions under § 2255. This

case will not be controlled by the decision in Emmanuel, however,

because Thomas has previously filed a first § 2255 motion and,

therefore was not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to

provide him notice and an opportunity to withdraw prior to

construing his motion as one filed under § 2255. Thomas’ recourse

is a motion in this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1999 &

Supp. 2001), for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

3

PER CURIAM:

Warren Thomas, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion nominally filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, which

the district court construed as filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Thomas, Nos.

CR-95-370; CA-02-152 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2002). We also note that the

Thomas’ § 2255 motion is successive and, thus, is unaffected by

this Court’s recent decision in Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th

Cir. 2002).* 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
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Oliver 
O'Connor and Kevin Burgess of my staff be granted floor privileges for 
the duration of today's session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5633-H5634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      THE INNOVATION PROMOTION ACT

  (Ms. SCHWARTZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. To strengthen our economic competitiveness in a global 
economy, we must create the right environment for private sector growth 
in cutting-edge industries. As we work to reform our corporate Tax 
Code, it's critical that we consider policies that reflect our 21st 
century economy, an innovation economy, and promote new domestic 
manufacturing based on the best ideas developed right here in America.
  Today, I will introduce a plan to incentivize manufacturing, 
innovation, and research and development right here in the United 
States. The Innovation Promotion Act keeps American businesses 
competitive by reducing their tax rate on patented products by more 
than half to 10 percent.
  This lower tax rate is a major incentive to keep production here in 
the United States and will better ensure American companies that choose 
to stay in the U.S. can compete with foreign competitors, expand to new 
markets, and hire new workers.

[[Page H5634]]

  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting American 
entrepreneurship, American innovation, and American jobs. Sign on to 
the Innovation Promotion Act to build America's economic leadership in 
the world and promote job creation right here at home.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2011204EN.01000502.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt

(Case C-83/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Article 88(2) and (3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Conditions for admissibility - Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment - Notion of ‘interested party’ - Competitive link - Assignment - Market for supply)

2011/C 204/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, Rechtsanwälte), Zellstoff Stendal GmbH (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and K. Karl, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 10 December 2008 in Case T-388/02 Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission inasmuch as the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) held admissible (albeit ultimately unfounded) an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections in relation to the aid granted by the German authorities in favour of Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for pulp — Incorrect assessment of the conditions for the admissibility of an action for annulment of a Commission decision based on Article 88(3) EC, brought by a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC

Kronoply and Kronotex

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission and Zellstoff Stendal GmbH to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission and Zellstoff Stendal GmbH to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                PROGRAM

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the first rollcall vote will be at 2:15 
p.m. on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 
3457, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012

No. 117
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1513

DENNIS CROFT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:11-cv-00277-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: December 27, 2012 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Loeschen, JOHN M. LOESCHEN LAW OFFICES, Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy Ross Spencer, OFFICE OF THE 

CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Croft, a former captain with the City of 

Roanoke Fire/EMS Department, appeals the district court’s order 

granting the City of Roanoke’s motion for summary judgment and 

dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district 

court in its memorandum opinion. See Croft v. City of Roanoke, 

Va., No. 7:11-cv-00277-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2012). 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 10(aa)
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
 PCS SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR U.S. EXECUTIVES
  1.
    
    Section 4.2(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 (a)
    
    is the monthly benefit that the Participant
would have accrued under the Pension Plan had the monthly
benefit been determined without regard to Code sections
401(a)(17) and 415; provided, however, that the accrued benefit
attributable to service credited on and after July 1, 2009
shall be determined without regard to any bonus amounts paid or
payable to the Executive for any calendar year under the
Corporations annual short-term incentive plan to the extent
that such amounts in the aggregate exceed the Executives
annual base pay on which such bonus amounts were based.
 2.
    
    In all other respects the Plan remains unchanged.EXECUTED on this 23 day of February, 2009.
 POTASH CORPORATION OF
SASKATCHEWAN INC./s/
Barbara Jane IrwinBy:

/s/
John W. Estey
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Suzuki, Debra

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 6:08 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa Subject: FW: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action

From: Suzuki, Debra

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 2:48 PM

To: 'Tiffany.Floyd@deq.idaho.gov'

Cc: Mary Anderson (mary.anderson@deq.idaho.gov); Kelly, Kate
Subject: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action



### Hi Tiffany. This message is a follow-up to my phone call today notifying you ab out the final action the EPA Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times, including wh en the sources are operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

Idaho is not one of the stat es for which the EPA is issuing a SIP call to make changes to their SIPs

because the EPA has determined that the SIP provisions cited in t he petition for your state are

consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s current SSM Policy to the ext ent they are still part of your EPA–approved SIP.

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated in state im plementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this ac tion, the EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

For more detail on the agency’s final action, we hav e posted a pre-publication version of the action

on our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urban air/sipstatus/emissions.html

.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with you to ensure that any future revisions to your SIP

are consistent with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s SSM policy. If yo u or your staff have questions, please feel free to call me at 206-553-0985.

Thank you and have a great weekend,

Debra Suzuki EPA Region 10 Air Planning Unit Manager

206-553-0985
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4315 

To exclude from consideration as income under the United States Housing 

Act of 1937 certain veterans compensation and pensions, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

Mr. VARGAS (for himself and Mr. POLIQUIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To exclude from consideration as income under the United 

States Housing Act of 1937 certain veterans compensation and pensions, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wounded Warrior 

5 Housing Reform Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSIONS FROM INCOME. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT TO EXISTING DEFINITION OF IN8 COME.—Paragraph (4) of section 3(b) of the United 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4315 IH

1 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(4)) is 

2 amended— 

3 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘except that’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘and any amounts’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘, (B) any amounts’’; 

6 (3) by striking ‘‘or any deferred’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘, (C) any deferred’’; and 

8 (4) by inserting after ‘‘prospective monthly 

9 amounts’’ the following: ‘‘, and (D) in the case of a 

10 veteran (as such term is defined in section 101 of 

11 title 38, United States Code), any disability com12 pensation under chapter 11 of title 38, United 

13 States Code, and amounts from a pension paid 

14 under section 1513 of title 38, United States 

15 Code,’’. 

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

17 subsection (a) shall be effective during the period begin18 ning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 

19 on the date on which the amendments made by section 

20 102(c) of the Housing Opportunity Through Moderniza21 tion Act of 2016 (Public Law 114–201; 130 Stat. 788) 

22 take effect. 

23 (c) AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF INCOME AFTER

24 HOTMA.—Effective on the day after the date on which 

25 the amendments made by section 102(c) of the Housing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4315 IH

1 Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (Public 

2 Law 114–201; 130 Stat. 788) take effect, clause (iv) of 

3 section 3(b)(4)(B) of the United States Housing Act of 

4 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(4)(B)) is amended to read as 

5 follows: 

6 ‘‘(iv) any disability compensation 

7 under chapter 11 of title 38, United States 

8 Code, and amounts from a pension paid 

9 under chapter 15 of such title; and’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Per capita market income is a measure of an area's total 

personal income, less transfer payments, divided by the 

resident population of the area. The percent of the U.S. 

average is computed by dividing the county per capita 

market income by the national average and multiplying by 

100. The map uses critical breaks such as the national 

average to organize the data into groups of common values.

Map Created: March 2013

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2010

Relative Per Capita Market Income Rates in Appalachia, 2010

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

29.7% - 49.9%

50.0% - 74.9%

75.0% - 99.9%

100.0% - 114.3%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

U.S. average = $32,562

Appalachian average = $24,425

(Critical Breaks Classification)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000             JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                             742                   1,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,392                  14,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                       511                     606
<INVENTORY>                                     17,511                  19,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,348                  35,841
<PP&E>                                          49,969                  66,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,448                  36,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,520                  70,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,324                  22,372
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         5,404                   5,393
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,802                  19,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,520                  70,571
<SALES>                                        110,438                 116,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,438                 116,194
<CGS>                                           90,623                  96,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,379                 113,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (311)                 (1,520)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,735                   1,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,697)                   2,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (226)                     852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,471)                   1,786
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,471)                   1,786
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.64)                    0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)                    0.33


</TABLE>
# C_2008272EN.01000902.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/9

---

Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-331/08)

(2008/C 272/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/35/EC expired on 30 April 2007. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary for transposition.

---

(1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.

1

---
This is to signify thatHARDWOOD PLYWOOD & VENEER ASSOCIATION1825 MICHAEL FARADAY DRIVERESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Inspection Agency AA-716Type A (Third-Party) Inspection Bodyhas met the requirements of the IAS Accreditation Criteria for Inspection Agencies (AC98), has demonstrated compliance withISO/IEC Standard 17020,General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection, and has beenaccredited, commencing October 15, 2010, toprovide inspection services in the approved scope of accreditation.Patrick V. McCullen C. P. Ramani, P.E.Vice President President(see attached scope of accreditation for field(s) of inspection, including type, range, methods or procedures)Print Date: 11/15/2010Page 1 of 2Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association AA-716Type A (Third-Party) Inspection BodyOctober 15, 2010Commencement Date C. P. Ramani, P.E.PresidentPrint Date: 11/15/2010Page 2 of 2Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association Brian T. Sause1825 Michael Faraday Dr. Director ofTesting, Certification & StandardsReston, VA 20190(703) 435-2900FIELDS OFINSPECTIONSTYPE AND RANGE OFINSPECTIONSINSPECTION METHODSAND PROCEDURESHardwood Plywood - FormaldehydeEmissions per CARB ATCMIn-plant Inspection and Certification Procedures perHPVA Formaldehyde Certification ProgramQuality Assurance Manual (QM-FCP)