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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1807

TANYA NELSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS, INC.; ROBERT G. KRAMER; KATY STREI; 

REBECCA KARIM; ABIGAIL JENKINS; MICHELLE PEPIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03541-DLB)

Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tanya Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Schultz Distler, Larry Robert Seegull, JACKSON 

LEWIS PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1807 Doc: 40 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tanya Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss Nelson’s claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12101 to 12213; the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 to 219; and the Equal 

Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). Defendants move to dismiss Nelson’s appeal as 

untimely. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on April 1, 2022. Nelson filed the underlying 

notice of appeal on July 28, 2022. Because Nelson failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Defendants’ motions 

and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1807 Doc: 40 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LCG MERCHANT PARTNERS, LLC,

Appellant,

V.

DAVID L. SCHAEFERS,

Appellee.

NO. 2D23-1140

January 3, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Anne-Leigh Moe, 

Judge.

Robert A. Stines of Smith Gambrell Russell, LLP, Tampa, for Appellant.

David A. Hayes and Shane B. Vogt of Turkel Cuva Barrios, P.A., Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7615

CARL TOWNES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MEREDITH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-495-AM)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 25, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Townes, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Townes

v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-96-495-AM (E.D. Va. Oct.

24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### ADKINS et al. v. MEADE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 29, 1952.

Wheeler & Wheeler, Paintsville, for appellants.

W. A. Johnson, Paintsville, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This appeal is from a judgment awarding appellee $987. The suit stems from an -oral contract between the parties, whereby appellee agreed to build a house for appellants for $6,000. As construction progressed, appellants made payments to appellee aggregating approximately $5,000. Prior to the final completion of the house, a disagreement arose, appellants claiming that appellee had failed to construct it according to the terms of their agreement. Appellants refused to pay the balance of the construction price.

There were many issues made by the pleadings and much proof was heard regarding the contentions of the parties as to the terms of the agreement and on the numerous items placed in dispute.

Appellants testified that the size of the house as erected is 28' x 3(7 when the agreement provided for it to be 3O' x 32'; that there were a number of palpable and serious defects and faults in the building; that the sewer line had not been completed and the bathroom walls were not tiled. Their evidence is supported by a neighbor who claims to have been present when the agreement was made. Also, by a building contractor and a carpenter who inspected the building. These witnesses testified that in order to remodel the house to conform with appellants’ specifications, the present building would have to be reconstructed at a cost of approximately $3,320. Appellee testified that the house was constructed according to the agreement and that appellants had been present on numerous occasions while the house was under construction and did not object to the manner in which it was being built. Other evidence tends to support appellee’s contentions. On this conflicting evidence the court found in favor of appellee.

This Court has adopted the rule, which we now adhere to, that where the facts are submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, its findings thereon are entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a properly instructed jury and we will not disturb them unless they are flagrantly against the evidence. McHargue v. Conrad et al., 312 Ky. 434, 227 S.W.2d 977; Lindon v. Potter, 306 Ky. 511, 208 S.W. 2d 515; Choate v. Farrar Lumber Co., 189 Ky. 271, 224 S.W. 1045. While it may be said that the evidence in this case preponderates in favor of appellants, the credibility of the witnesses was a matter for the trial court and its findings are not flagrantly against the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11 - 6362

THOMAS M. TULLY ,

Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections ,

Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appe al from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 00299

- JRS )

Submitted : August 30, 2011 Decided: September 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas M. Tully, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Tully seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A ) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by dem onstrating 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 , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Tully has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Tully’s motions to schedule and participate in oral argument and
t o appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
Exhibit


EXHIBIT 10.3


SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


THIS SECOND amendment to executive severance agreement (the “Second Amendment”) is made as of July 10, 2015 by and between Michael J. Poppe (“Executive”) and Conn’s, Inc. (the “Company”).


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to an Executive Severance Agreement, dated September 1, 2011, as amended by that Amendment to Severance Agreement, dated December 3, 2013 (collectively, the “Agreement”);


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive now desire to further amend the Agreement in the manner set forth herein and pursuant to the terms of this Second Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 
1.Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
“Term of Agreement.  This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will continue in effect for one (1) year from such date, and shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year periods unless terminated by mutual written agreement of Executive and Company prior to the end of the then-existing term.”
2.    Continuing Effect.  The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that, except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and that this Second Amendment, together with the Agreement, reflects the entire agreement of the parties hereto. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Second Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.


 [Signature Page Follows]







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment effective as of the date first written above.






	
				
	 
	 
	CONN'S, INC.

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Robert F. Bell

	 
	 
	Name:
	Robert F. Bell

	 
	 
	Title:
	Vice President and General Counsel






	
				
	 
	 
	EXECUTIVE

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Michael J. Poppe

	 
	 
	Name:
	Michael J. Poppe
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50588 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Spencer Duran Riley,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:03

- CR

- 38

- 5

Before **Dennis, Costa,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Spencer Duran Riley 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). Riley has filed a resp onse. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 6, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce C lerk Case: 20-50588 Document: 00515851551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2021No. 20

- 50588

2 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Riley ’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counse l’s
motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th**
**Cir. R**

**.** 42. 2. Case: 20-50588 Document: 00515851551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2021
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 215

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor

of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 16, 1993

Mr. BLACKWELL introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage

stamp in honor of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the United States Postal Service shall issue a com4 memorative stamp in honor of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

5 The stamp shall bear a likeness of Justice Marshall that

6 shall be derived from a rendering of the image of Justice

7 Marshall offered by Mr. Steven Johnson of Philadelphia,
2

•HJ 215 IH

1 Pennsylvania. The stamp shall be issued and sold for such

2 period as the United States Postal Service shall determine.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          24,220
<SECURITIES>                                     4,790
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,411
<PP&E>                                          54,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            53
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,531
<SALES>                                         48,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,214
<CGS>                                           38,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,721
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,085
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COTIRT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 1:22-CR-040-03-H

ABEL MIKEAL CISNEROS,

Defendant.

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636(bX1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated September L(n, 2022.

JAMES Y RIX

UNITED ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE I.TNTTED STATES MAGISTRATE JI]DGE

CONCER}IING PLEA OF GUILTY

Case 1:22-cr-00040-H-BU Document 78 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 140
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley
Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I,
Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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 Partnership.









By:	 /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		November 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice To Extend the Public and Agency Scoping Period and Conduct 
an Additional Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the Development of an Air-to-Ground Training Range in the 
State of Montana

    The Air National Guard is issuing this notice to advise the public 
of its decision to extend the public and agency scoping period for the 
preparation of the Draft EIS which will assess the potential 
environmental impacts of a proposal to develop an air-to-ground 
training range in the State of Montana.
    An additional scoping meeting will be held on December 12, 2000 at 
the Phillips County Library, 10\1/2\ South 4th East, Malta, MT. The 
purpose of the additional scoping meeting is to address the development 
of additional alternatives in Phillips County. The comment period for 
scoping related comments has been extended to January 15, 2001 to 
ensure sufficient time to consider public and agency comments in the 
screening process and preparation of the Draft EIS. You may call 1-800-
545-8680 (select option 5, Wing Headquarters) to give oral comments. If 
you have questions or require additional information, please contact 
Major Mitnik at (301) 836-8636 or (301) 836-8065. Written comments 
should be submitted to the following address: Montana EIS, ANG/CEVP, 
ATTN: Major Tammy Mitnik, 3500 Fetchet Avenue, Andrews Air Force Base, 
Maryland 20762.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-29518 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SILVES HUBBARD, 

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0286-K

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner

of SSA

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver made findings, 

conclusions and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The Court 

reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. 

Finding none, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of 

the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s Petition and Brief for Award of 

Attorney Fees and Court Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 22, be 

GRANTED in the amount of $4,338.02. Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees 

should be made payable directly to Plaintiff but sent in care of her attorney. Jackson 

v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 527, 531 n.11 (5th Cir. 2013).

SO ORDERED.

Signed January 30th, 2023.

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00286-K-BK Document 25 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 674
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.2
                               PSINET INC.
                             AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                     
              CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE  (UNAUDITED) (1)


                                                             Nine Months Ended
                                                            September 30, 1996
                                                            ------------------

Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
           Shares outstanding at beginning of year..............   37,914,932
           Weighted average shares issued during 
             the nine months ended September 30, 
             1996 (2,142,511 shares)............................    1,228,331
                                                                   ----------
                                                                   39,143,263
                                                                   ----------
                                                                   ----------

Net Loss........................................................$ (38,300,000)
                                                                   ----------
                                                                   ----------
Loss per share (unaudited)......................................$      (0.98)
                                                                   ----------
                                                                   ----------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For a description of loss per share, see Note 2 of the Notes to the 
    Consolidated Financial Statements.



































                                      19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0724 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MADISON WILLIAM MINER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 3 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 29 2024

07/29/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0724