alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J

- Dirt , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00159

- LMB

- 1; 1:20

- cv - 01298

- LMB )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 23, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Justin Deonta Strom appeals the district court’s order construing his postjudgment motion, which Strom styled as an “Indictment Challenge,” as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion , and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. * Although the district court dismissed the motion without prejudice, we conclude that the order is final and appealable. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 610

- 12 (4th Cir. 2020) (discussing factors this court considers in determining whether order is final and appealable), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Strom’s filing as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Strom failed to obtain prefiling authorization from t his
court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Strom’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Strom’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a postjudgment motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).3 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
10.3


 


AMENDMENT
TO


 


EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


 


WHEREAS, IMC Global Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”)
and Mary Ann Hynes (the “Executive”) entered into that certain Executive
Severance Agreement as of October 24, 2000 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend
the Agreement in certain respects.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and
covenants contained in the Agreement, and in consideration of the agreements
and covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the
Executive and the Company hereby agree to the amendment of the Agreement as
follows:


 


Paragraph 3 of Section 5(h) is amended to read as
follows:


 


3.                                       for
the three (3) year period following Termination, the Executive will not induce
or persuade or attempt to induce or persuade any employee or agent of the
Company to terminate his or her employment, agency, or other relationship with
the Company in order to enter into any employment, agency or other relationship
with any business that is not affiliated with the Company;


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned have executed this Amendment to the Agreement this 20 day of October,
2004.


 


	
   

  	
  For the Company:

  	
          /s/
  Douglas A. Pertz

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Executive

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
          /s/
  Mary Ann Hynes
Exhibit 10.1


             


            FORM OF


            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CORPORATION’S


            2004 STOCK OPTION PLAN


             


            Section 4.1 of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


             


            4.1 Reserved Shares. Subject to Section 11 (relating to adjustments upon changes in capitalization), the aggregate number of shares of Stock (as defined in Section 6) that may be acquired under the Plan by any one Eligible Employee and by all Eligible Employees pursuant to options granted hereunder shall not exceed 85,306 shares.
            Shares of Stock covered by options granted under the Plan, which options expire, terminate or are canceled for any reason (other than an option, or part thereof, that is canceled by the Committee and for which cash is paid in respect thereof) shall again become available for award under the Plan.
December 10, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION The Rules Docket (AGC 200) Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC. 20591 Re: Exemption No. 9970 , Regulatory Docket No. FAA- 2006 -25434 This letter serves as a request for a two - ye ar extension of Exemption No. 9970 , Regulatory

Docket No. FAA-2006 -25434, which expires January 31, 2011. The Texas Aviation Hall of Fame has operated its North American B - 25 (B -25) (registration No. N333RW and serial No. 4486734) and Boeing B - 17G (B - 17) (registration No. N900RW and serial No. 44 - 85718) for the purpose of carrying passengers for compensation or hire on local flights for educational and historical purposes under the terms and conditions of Exemption 8797. The Texas Aviation Hall of Fame continues to hold a determination from the IRS as a 501(c) (3) charitable organization and all of the conditions associated with our program and the reasons presented with our original petition remain unchanged. Please feel free to contact me at 409 - 740 - 7722 with any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Larry Gregory President Texas Aviation Hall of Fame
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 22701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09422]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / 
Notices

[[Page 22701]]

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors

AGENCY: United States African Development Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its 
quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's 
programs and administration.

DATES: The meeting date is Tuesday, April 28th, 2015, 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting location is 1400 I Street Northwest, Suite #1000 
(Main Conference Room), Washington, DC 20005-2246.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Rivard, 202-233-8804.

    Authority: Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. Sec.  290h).

    Dated: April 15, 2015.
Doris Martin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-09422 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.3


                        AMENDMENT DATED DECEMBER 7, 1999
                                     to the
                      APPLIED EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                             1986 STOCK OPTION PLAN


Section 6(f) of the Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc. 1986 Stock Option Plan
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

               "(f) LIMITED TRANSFERABILITY OF OPTIONS. Except as otherwise
          determined by the Committee in the case of nonstatutory options, no
          option may be transferred other than by will or by the laws of descent
          and distribution and during the participant's lifetime an option may
          be exercised only by the participant."


                                       1
**Exhibit 31.1**
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
     I, Paul W. Whetsell, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MeriStarHospitality Corporation;
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
 b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and
 c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’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: August 6, 2004   /s/ Paul W. Whetsell    Paul W. Whetsell    Chief Executive OfficerMeriStar Hospitality Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      25,001,164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,631,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,034,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                 523,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,645,800,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       219,491
<OTHER-SE>                                 120,964,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,645,800,076
<SALES>                                     27,719,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,421,595
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,920,336
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,200,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,618,158
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,638,782
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,938,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,938,782
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 241 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 241

    To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of 
                                America.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2017

Mrs. Ernst (for herself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Roberts, 
 Mr. Scott, Mr. Paul, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Moran, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Daines, 
   Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Sasse, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
 Kennedy, Mr. Lee, Mr. Risch, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Corker, Mr. 
Grassley, and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of 
                                America.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Funding for Women's Health 
Care Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds as follows:
            (1) State and county health departments, community health 
        centers, hospitals, physicians offices, and other entities 
        currently provide, and will continue to provide, health 
        services to women. Such health services include relevant 
        diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, 
        prenatal and postpartum care, immunization, family planning 
        services including contraception, sexually transmitted disease 
        testing, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and referrals.
            (2) Many such entities provide services to all persons, 
        regardless of the person's ability to pay, and provide services 
        in medically underserved areas and to medically underserved 
        populations.
            (3) All funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood 
        will continue to be made available to other eligible entities 
        to provide women's health care services.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
Federal funds may be made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of 
America, or to any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or 
clinics.
    (b) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
to--
            (1) affect any limitation contained in an appropriations 
        Act relating to abortion; or
            (2) reduce overall Federal funding available in support of 
        women's health.
                                 <all>
```
```

CONFIRMING STATEMENT

    This statement confirms that the undersigned, Roderick English, has authorized and designated, Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost, to execute and file on the undersignedTMs behalf, all Form 3, 4, and 5 (including amendments thereto) that the undersigned may be required to file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a result of the undersignedTMs ownership of or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation.  The authority of Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost under this statement shall continue until the undersigned is no longer required to file Form 3, 4, and 5 with regard to the undersigned ownership or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation, unless earlier revoked in writing.  The undersigned acknowledges Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost are not assuming any of the undersignedTMs responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        __/s/ Roderick English______
                        Roderick English

Date: February 13, 2014
```
Exhibit 10.10.2



                               AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
to Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2004 between ORMAT NEVADA INC and
                    YEHEZKEL RAM (the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT)

                      entered this 12 day of October 2004


The Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

     Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by changing the
     expiration date from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2007.

     All other terms of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this
     Employment Agreement on the date set forth above



                                                  EMPLOYEE

                                                  /s/ Hezy Ram
                                                  ------------------------

                                                  EMPLOYER

                                                  By: /s/ L.Y. Bronicki
                                                     ---------------------

                                                  Its: Chairman
                                                      --------------------
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40263

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KIRSTI MELISSA LAYTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 604

Filed: July 30, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Kirsti Melissa Layton pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance 

(methamphetamine), Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Layton to a 

unified term of five years, with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. After a period 

of retained jurisdiction, the district court released is jurisdiction and executed the underlying 

sentence. Layton filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of her sentence, which 

the district court denied. Layton appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by 

denying her Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 
2

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of 

Layton’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Layton’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
ex103.htm


    Exhibit
10.3

    
 

    
      MANAGEMENT
AGRREMENT

       

       

       

      This Agreement is entered
into and effective as of July 14, 2008 by and between Gen2Media Corporation
(Gen2) and Media Evolutions, Inc.
(MEV).

       

      1.           Gen2
is a digital media company, and MEV is a production company.  The
companies have common ownership, in that the owners of MEV are also shareholders
and officers of Gen2.  Gen2 is a new public company, and to avoid any
potential conflicts of interest or other similar issues, the parties have agreed
to enter into this management agreement.

       

      2.           Effective
July 14, 2008, Gen2 shall manage 100% of the business and financial operations
of MEV, and all revenue and profit generated from MEV operations shall flow into
Gen2 as management fees, and Gen2 shall pay all bills, including all equipment
leases, credit line payments or other bills of MEV.

       

      3.           Gen2
shall provide office and studio rental free of charge, personnel and all other
expenses directly for all MEV projects, and shall retain, as management fees,
all profit resulting from products or services sold by MEV.  Gen2
shall maintain a set of books under a management account, on behalf of
MEV.

       

      4.           This
Agreement shall be governed under Florida Law, and shall be binding upon the
parties as of the date hereof.

       

       

    

    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      
                        
                          	Gen2Media
      Corp.	 	Media
      Evolutions, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
                                  /s/

                                	 	By:	
                                  /s/
      

                                	 
	 	
                                  Mary
      Spio, President 

                                	 	 	Ian McDaniel,
      President
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3292

_____________________________
T HADDEUS A NDERSON , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. John C. Cooper , Judge

. October 25, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Thaddeus Anderson, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Leslie A. Healer, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.