alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2136

YETERFWORK TESFA SIMRET, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-578-364) Submitted: September 22, 2003 Decided: October 10, 2003 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Dennis Muchnicki, Oscar A. Budde, Dublin, Ohio, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Yeterfwork Tesfa Simret, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s ruling and denying relief on her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Simret failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to qualify for relief from deportation. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000); INS v. EliasZacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals , 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 10.5


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE

QUANEX CORPORATION HOURLY BARGAINING UNIT

EMPLOYEES SAVINGS PLAN


 


THIS AGREEMENT by Quanex
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Sponsor”),


 


W I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H:


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor previously
established the Quanex Corporation Hourly Bargaining Unit Employees Savings Plan,
as amended and restated effective January 1, 1998 (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor reserved
the right in Section 12.01 to amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor has determined to amend the
Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor
agrees that effective for mandatory distributions under the Plan on and after
March 28, 2005, Section 5.04 of the Plan is amended to provide as follows:


 


5.04         Immediate Payment of Small Amount Upon
Separation From Service. Each Participant or former Participant
whose Nonforfeitable Interest in his Account balance at the time of a
distribution to him on account of his Separation From Service is, in the aggregate,
less than or equal to $1,000.00, shall be paid in the form of an immediate
single sum cash payment and/or as a Direct Rollover, as elected by him under
section 5.05. However, if a Distributee who is subject to this Section 5.04
does not furnish instructions in accordance with Plan procedures to directly
roll over his Plan benefit within 45 days after he has been given direct
rollover forms, he will be deemed to have elected to receive an immediate lump
sum cash distribution of his entire Plan benefit. If a Participant’s or former
Participant’s Nonforfeitable Interest in his Account balance payable upon his
Separation From Service is zero (because he has no Nonforfeitable Interest in
his Account balance), he will be deemed to receive an immediate distribution of
his entire Nonforfeitable Interest in his Account balance.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor
has caused this Agreement to be executed on the 19th day of December, 2005.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  QUANEX
  CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  Kevin P. Delaney

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  Kevin
  P. Delaney

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Senior
  Vice President – General Counsel and

  Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27366]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PEACE CORPS


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Peace Corps.

ACTION: Notice of change of effective date and additional modifications 
to proposed systems of records.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Peace Corps issued 
public notice of its proposal to modify nineteen systems of records and 
add six new systems of records. The notice provided information 
required under the Privacy Act on the revised and new systems of 
records. This Notice revises the effective date for two systems of 
records and gives notice that the effective date for the remaining 
systems is October 23, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Thielen, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer, Peace Corps, 1111 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20526. Telephone: (202) 692-1106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the 
Peace Corps issued public notice on September 5, 2000, of its proposal 
to modify nineteen systems of records and add six new systems of 
records (65 FR 53772, September 5, 2000). The notice provided 
information required under the Privacy Act on the revised and new 
systems of records. The Comment deadline in the Notice was October 20, 
2000, and the effective date for the systems of records was October 23, 
2000, unless the Peace Corps received comments that would require a 
different determination. As a result of receiving internal comments, 
Privacy Act systems PC-17 and PC-22 will require additional 
modification. Therefore, these two systems will not become effective on 
October 23. Instead, the current version of PC-17 will remain in effect 
until it is republished for comment by the Peace Corps with additional 
modifications. The current version of PC-17 may be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? System PC-22, which is a 
new system, can be found in the Notice published on September 5, 2000, 
at 65 FR 53772.

    This notice is issued in Washington, DC, October 19, 2000.
Doug Greene,
Chief, Information Officer and Associate Director for Management.
[FR Doc. 00-27366 Filed 10-20-00; 2:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 6051-01-M
#### SPARKS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 20, 1953.

Redwine- & Redwine, M. C. Redwine, Winchester, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.1

CAMMACK, Justice.

Norvill Sparks is appealing from a judgment sentencing him to three years in prison on a charge of storehouse breaking. He as'ks that the judgment be reversed on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the submission of his case to the jury. Admittedly, the -case is a close one, but we have reached the conclusion that the question of Sparks’ guilt was one for.the jury.

George Taylor *operates*a small grocery in Fayette County about seven miles from Lexington in the direction of the Clark County line. On Sunday morning, December 9, 1951, he found that his store had been broken into and a quantity of goods taken therefrom. The goods consisted of cigarettes, chewing gum, canned goods and shotgun shells. The next day Taylor identified the stolen goods in the police station at Winchester. The goods had been found by the police in a barn belonging to Sam Shrout, about six miles from Winchester. Shrout said that Sparks and a boy by the name of Hobbs brought the stolen goods in a car to his barn about two o’clock Sunday morning, December 9th. He said that Hobbs told him he had some stuff in his car and wanted to leave it in the barn a day or two and that,he would come back for it.. Shrout .said also that he was told that the goods had been purchased on Depot Street, in Winchester, and that Sparks made no statement about having been in Fayette County. Sparks did not testify.

As said in Clark v. Commonwealth, 288 Ky. 845, 157 S.W.2d 485, the possession of stolen property by the accused is sufficient to warrant the submission of a case to the jury in a charge of prosecution for storehouse breaking. The presumption of guilt in such a case must be rebutted by a satisfactory explanation of how the accused obtained possession of the goods; Wheeler v. Commonwealth, 295 Ky. 28, 173 S.W.2d 817. Sparks and Hobbs took the stolen goods to Shrout’s barn. Hobbs may or may not have been the principal offender, but, as the record stands, the parties were together when they reached Shrout’s place. . ' '

The recent cases of Aubrey v. Commonwealth, 302 Ky. 205, 194 S.W.2d 371, and Abrams v. Commonwealth, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 902, relied upon by Sparks, are distinguishable from the -case before us. In the Au--*383brey case the accused did not take the witness stand, but there was no evidence connecting him directly or indirectly with breaking into the store. Nor were any of the stolen goods found in his possession. In the Abrams case we said that the circumstantial evidence tending to show that Abrams had blown a safe in a filling station was insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Pollex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seong Sam Cho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated: March 31, 2011
/s/ Seong Sam ChoBy: Seong Sam ChoIts: Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pollex, Inc. and will be retained by Pollex, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 This certification is provided pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 of
Horizon Offshore, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report). I, Richard A. Sebastiao, Chief Restructuring Officer (principal executive officer) of the Company,
certify that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities 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. /s/ Richard A. Sebastiao Richard A. Sebastiao
Chief Restructuring Officer
(principal executive officer)
March 31, 2005
Current DOE definitions:

The term “ distributor ” means a person (other than the manufacturer or retailer) to whom a consumer product is delivered or sold for purposes of distribution in commerce.
The term “retailer” means a person to whom a consumer product is delivered or sold, if such delivery or sale is for purposes of sale or distribution in commerce to purchasers who buy such product for purposes other than re

- sale

. Proposed definition s :
A dealer or contractor is a person (other than the manufact urer or distributor) who sells to and/or installs for an end user a residential central air conditioner covered by regional standards.

A n installer is a person that installs a residential central air conditioner covered by regional standards. A
contractor , dealer, or installer may perform any of the functions defined above.

Vote (9/4/2014): unanimous

D efinition Idea s:

• A dealer or contractor is a person (other than the manufacturer or distributor) to whom a consumer product is delivered and sold to an en d user.

• A dealer or contractor is a person (other than the manufacturer or distributor) who sells to an end

user and/or installs a residential central air conditioner covered by regional standards

.

• A n installer is a person that installs a residential central air conditioner covered by regional standards.

• A contractor, dealer, or installer may perform any of the functions defined above.

Dealer Contractor Installer

• A dealer is a contractor with a relationship with a product manufacturer or distributors

. The relationship can be formal with a contract or informal with a contract or informal in that they specialize in that product from a specific manufacturer.

• Entity that purchases the equipment for the purpose of selling to the end user • The person that offers to perform services in HVAC

• A contractor is one who is hired to specify(?) and/or install a product. A contractor may employ installers or subcontract to an installer.

• Entity that the customer employs

• Entity that purchases the equipment for the purp ose of selling and or installing for the consumer

• The entity that oversees the installation • The entity that installs the equipment
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

              BELDEN CDT INC. ANNUAL CASH INCENTIVE PLAN (SUMMARY)

The Belden CDT Inc. Annual Cash Incentive Plan provides for an annual bonus. The
financial performance goals for the CEO and the executive officers who are not
division presidents are based on Company earnings per share from continuing
operations (80%) and Company working capital as a percentage of revenues (20%),
subject to adjustment to reflect unusual or unexpected corporate events. The
financial performance goals for the executive officers who are division
presidents are based on Company earnings per share from continuing operations
(40%), Company working capital as a percentage of revenues (10%), division
operating income (35%) and division working capital (15%), also subject to
adjustment to reflect unusual or unexpected corporate events. Further, bonuses
can be adjusted based on individual performance.

The Compensation Committee establishes the financial performance goals at the
beginning of the year. The Company's overall financial performance determines
the size of the bonus pool to be distributed to the members of management
participating in the program. The annual incentive bonuses are calculated by the
Committee as a percentage of the management members' base salary.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 318 

To authorize a Wall of Remembrance as part of the Korean War Veterans 

Memorial and to allow certain private contributions to fund that Wall 

of Remembrance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2013 

Mr. HALL (for himself, Mr. CONNOLLY, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. HANNA, Ms. 

SCHWARTZ, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. 

KEATING, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. COBLE, Mr. 

STIVERS, Mr. COLE, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. 

GUTHRIE, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. BUTTERFIELD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize a Wall of Remembrance as part of the Korean 

War Veterans Memorial and to allow certain private contributions to fund that Wall of Remembrance. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WALL OF REMEMBRANCE. 

4 Section 1 of the Act titled ‘‘An Act to authorize the 

5 erection of a memorial on Federal Land in the District 

6 of Columbia and its environs to honor members of the 

7 Armed Forces of the United States who served in the KoVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:32 Jan 19, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H318.IH H318

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 318 IH

1 rean War’’, approved October 25, 1986 (Public Law 99– 

2 572), is amended by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘Such memorial shall include a Wall of Remembrance, 

4 which shall be constructed without the use of Federal 

5 funds. The American Battle Monuments Commission shall 

6 request and consider design recommendations from the 

7 Korean War Veterans Memorial Foundation, Inc. for the 

8 establishment of the Wall of Remembrance. The Wall of 

9 Remembrance shall include— 

10 ‘‘(1) a list by name of members of the Armed 

11 Forces of the United States who were killed in ac12 tion in the Korean War; 

13 ‘‘(2) the number of members of the Armed 

14 Forces of the United States who, in regards to the 

15 Korean War— 

16 ‘‘(A) were wounded in action; 

17 ‘‘(B) are listed as missing in action; or 

18 ‘‘(C) were prisoners of war; and 

19 ‘‘(3) the number of members of the Korean 

20 Augmentation to the United States Army, the Re21 public of Korea Armed Forces, and the other na22 tions of the United Nations Command who, in re23 gards to the Korean War— 

24 ‘‘(A) were killed in action; 

25 ‘‘(B) were wounded in action; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 318 IH

1 ‘‘(C) are listed as missing in action; or 

2 ‘‘(D) were prisoners of war.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40815 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALEJANDRO SOLIS

- TENEYUCA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 314

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Solis

- Teneyuca has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Solis

- Teneyuca has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Solis

Teneyuca ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessme nt that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 8, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40815 Document: 00513410571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2016No. 15

- 40815

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-40815 Document: 00513410571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2016
Opinion filed July 26, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-18-00191-CV

__________

IN RE CURTIS TEER

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Curtis Teer, Relator, has filed an original mandamus proceeding in this court. 

Relator asserts that the Honorable Rodney W. Satterwhite, the judge of the 441st

Judicial District Court of Midland County, violated Relator’s due process rights 

when he issued an order to withdraw $6,523.01 from Relator’s inmate trust fund for 

the payment of attorney’s fees and court costs. Relator asserts that there is a 

discrepancy of $2,670.75; he also states that he was determined to be indigent in the 

underlying case and that, therefore, the $3,186.76 in court-appointed attorney’s fees 

should not have been assessed against him.

Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial 

court has clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy
2

by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) 

(orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). Relator here has not shown that he has no adequate remedy by appeal.

We agree with Relator that a notice or order to withdraw funds is not an

appealable order. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009) 

(“withdrawal order” is actually a notification from the court, not an order). 

However, an order ruling on a motion to strike or rescind an order to withdraw 

inmate funds would be appealable. See id. at 321. To his petition, Relator has 

attached a copy of a motion to rescind, addressed to the trial court. The motion to 

rescind and the petition for writ of mandamus reflect that Relator executed these 

documents within days of each other. If the motion to rescind has been filed in the 

trial court, Relator is entitled to a ruling on that motion. However, Relator did not 

attach to his petition a file-stamped copy of the motion to rescind, nor has he asked 

this court to direct the trial court to rule on his motion to rescind. Relator’s relief 

lies in the motion to rescind and, if necessary, an appeal from a denial of the motion 

to rescind. See id. Because Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, he has not 

demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842; 

In re Mendoza, No. 05-16-00383-CV, 2016 WL 1469593, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

Apr. 14, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

July 26, 2018

Panel consists of: Willson, J., 

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

 

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

 

We have made a review of the condensed consolidated financial statements of Superior UniformGroup, Inc. and subsidiary (“the Company”) as of June 30, 2005 in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and issued our report thereon dated July 28, 2005. We are aware that such financialstatements and our above-mentioned report appearing in the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 are being incorporated by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105906, effective June 6, 2003) andthat such report pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Paragraphs 7and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Tampa, Florida 

July 28, 2005