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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6131

PATRICK KNIGHTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

B. M. ANTONELLI, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:18-cv-02835-JFA)

Submitted: July 25, 2019 Decided: August 7, 2019

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Knighton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Knighton, a federal inmate, appeals the district court’s order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice 

Knighton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record, the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the district court’s order, and affirm. 

We conclude that Knighton cannot pursue a sentencing remedy under § 2241 because he 

fails to establish that the settled substantive law affecting his sentence changed after his 

direct appeal and first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. See United States v. Wheeler, 

886 F.3d 415, 427-29 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1318 (2019). 

Accordingly, we grant Knighton leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 

affirm the district court’s order. 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
# Official Journal L 296/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.296.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 296 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5525 October 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.296.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 296

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5525 October 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                        473
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 152,361
<ALLOWANCES>                  9,170
<INVENTORY>                   78,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              269,261
<PP&E>                        25,493
<DEPRECIATION>                2,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                635,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         166,069
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   89,131
<COMMON>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  635,304
<SALES>                       300,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              300,591
<CGS>                         102,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 102,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              170,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            16,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>               9,274
<INCOME-TAX>                  4,932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           4,342
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  4,342
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.000
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10(A)
                                AMENDMENT NO. 9
                                     to the
                            MARTIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
                         EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN


           Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of 
the Martin Industries, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, as heretofore
amended (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

           Section 13(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding thereto, at 
the end thereof, the following new paragraph (3):

                        (3)    A Participant who is employed at the Company's
       plant in Washington Park, Illinois, on April 2, 1998, and whose
       employment is terminated as a result of the closing of such plant in
       June of 1998, shall be 100% vested in his Plan Benefit.


           This amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of April 2, 1998.


                                            MARTIN INDUSTRIES, INC.



                                       By  /s/ William H. Martin
                                         -------------------------------------


ATTEST:



By  /s/ Roderick V. Schlosser
  -------------------------------------
Its Secretary


[CORPORATE SEAL]



                                       1
AFS-12-392-E 

July 9, 2012 

 Exemption No. 6140I 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12416 

Mr. Paul W. Railsback 

Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d.b.a. Airlines for America 

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20004-1707 

Dear Mr. Railsback: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 6140, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 21, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d.b.a. Airlines for America (A4A), for 

an extension of Exemption No. 6140, as amended. That exemption from § 121.309(f)(2) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows A4A-member airlines to locate the aft 

megaphone at door 4-left on their Boeing 747 aircraft. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to A4A. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6140, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 6140, as amended, to 

August 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

John M Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service
H. J. Res. 283

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c)

of Public Law 103–88, as amended by Public Law 103–113, is

further amended by striking out ‘‘October 28, 1993’’ and inserting

in lieu thereof ‘‘November 10, 1993’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: PROMULGATION OF CONSUMER 

PRICE INDEX PURSUANT TO 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 

1725.1(f) and 3571(c)(4)

: No. 428

: Judicial Administration Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

And now, this 15th day of October, 2014, it is Ordered pursuant to Article V , Section 10(c) 

of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and Section 3502(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 

3502(a), that the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania is authorized to obtain and publish in the 

Pennsylvania Bulletin the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for calendar year 

2013 as required by Act 96 of 2010, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 1725.1(f) and 3571(c)(4)(as amended).
Appendix in Support of Defendant CIG Financial, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Page 1 of 2

13420565v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

Edrick Fuller,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIG Financial, LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company; The Car 

Source, LLC, d/b/a Hide And Seek 

Recovery, Individually, and as Agent, 

Apparent Agent, Servant, and/or 

Employee of CIG Financial with Julius 

Sims The Repossession Agent, as Agent, 

Apparent Agent, Servant, and/or 

Employee Of Hide And Seek Recovery, 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-1289

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT CIG FINANCIAL, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In support of Defendant CIG Financial, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment being filed 

simultaneously herewith, Defendant files this appendix, which contains the exhibits referenced in 

the motion. 

“Bates” Number 

of First Page

Exhibit 

Number Name of Exhibit

1 - 4 A Unsworn Declaration of CIG’s Corporate Representative

5 - 11 A-1 The Note executed by the Plaintiff

12 - 13 A-2 Plaintiff’s Payment History

14 - 16 A-3 Plaintiff’s Loan Comment Report for December 31, 2019

17 - 59 B The oral deposition of Plaintiff Edrick Fuller

60 - 197 C A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s responses to CIG’s First 

Set of Request for Production

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 60 Filed 11/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 540
Appendix in Support of Defendant CIG Financial, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Page 2 of 2

13420565v1

“Bates” Number 

of First Page

Exhibit 

Number Name of Exhibit

198-202 D A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

Respectfully submitted, 

THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.

By: /s/Farrah Ahmed______________

Farrah I. Ahmed

State Bar No. 24071934

fahmed@thompsoncoe.com

700 N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor

Plaza of the Americas

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 871-8200

Facsimile: (214) 871-8209

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

CIG FINANCIAL LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 11, 2023, electronically filed this document with the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and, through the electronic filing system, a 

copy of the foregoing document was served on the following counsel and parties of record:

Edrick Paul Fuller

1906 Berwick

Dallas, Texas 75203

Email: edrickfuller@my.untdallas.edu

Pro-se Plaintiff 

Hessam Parzivand

The Parzivand Law Firm, PLLC

10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185

Stafford, Texas 77477

Email: hp@parzfirm.com

Attorney for Defendant The Car Source LLC

/s/Farrah Ahmed

Farrah I. Ahmed, Esq.

Case 3:22-cv-01289-D Document 60 Filed 11/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 541
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00006-CR Keith Shawn Lewis, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 54420, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Keith Shawn Lewis seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for intoxication assault. The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Lewis has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeal is dismissed. Rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Puryear and Pemberton Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: January 23, 2004 Do Not Publish
Opinion issued August 4, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00730-CV

———————————

SCHARLOTTE HUGHES, Appellant

V.

MARIO SANCHEZ D/B/A ALL FIX, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2019-73545

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed September 29, 2021. 

Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 12, 2022. We granted one extension of 

time to file the brief until June 13, 2022. On June 15, 2022, we issued a notice 

advising appellant that unless the brief was filed within ten days, we might dismiss 
2

the appeal for want of prosecution. Appellant neither timely filed a brief nor

requested an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1) (permitting appellate court to

dismiss for want of prosecution for failure to file appellant’s brief). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,600 and NAFTA 3998]

                    On October 4, 2000, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 18, 2000 (65 FR 62369).                

The Department initially denied TAA to workers of Trinity Industries, Incorporated because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The  Department denied NAFTA-TAA because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of section 250 was not met and because there was no shift in production to either Mexico or Canada. The workers at the subject firm were engaged in employment related to the production of aluminum rail cars.

The petitioner asserted that imports of rail cars contributed importantly to the worker separations and provided additional information which should have been considered by the Department in its survey of customers.

On reconsideration, the Department surveyed additional customers of the subject firm. The survey revealed that no customers were purchasing imported aluminum rail cars.

## Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance and NAFTA-TAA for workers and former workers of Trinity Industries, Incorporated, Mt. Orab, Ohio.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day of November, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-29158 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

VS, § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-249-K (01)

§

ANGEL GABRIEL ALAMILLA §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

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 

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

thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and 

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

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

Plea Agreement and the Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty. Sentence will be imposed 

in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Signed June 30th, 2023.

_____________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00249-K Document 35 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 69
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: 2010-NM-230-AD SNPRM

Directorate ID: FAA-2011-0036

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 

Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation

EVALUATION: Express Server

EVALUATION: Conversion Package
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here

Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation

EVALUATION: Express Server

EVALUATION: Conversion Package
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation

EVALUATION: Express Server

EVALUATION: Conversion Package
**Exhibit 31. 2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**       I, Jerry L. Ball, EVP/CFO of Valrico Bancorp, Inc, certify that:  (name) (title) (company)  
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of September 30,2004; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b. **[This paragraph intentionally left blank.]** c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: November 15, 2004 /s/ Jerry L. Ball – EVP/CFO   (name & title)
Opinion issued April 9, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00679-CV

———————————

IN RE CEDARCREST CEMETERY, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Cedarcrest Cemetery, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

asking that we order the trial court to (1) vacate its order denying relator’s motion 

for summary judgment, and (2) grant relator’s motion for summary judgment.1 

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Any pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.

1 The underlying case is Maria Flores v. Cedarcrest Cemetery & Monument, cause 

number 1185122, pending in the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris

County, Texas, the Honorable Manpreet Monica Singh presiding.