alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT HENRY DAVIS, a/k/a Pops, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:00- cr-00424; 8:04-cv-3291) Submitted: June 13, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* We note that to the extent Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s September 30, 2005 order denying his § 2255 motion, his December 5, 2006 notice of appeal is untimely as to that order. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying in part and granting in part his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying his application for a certificate of appealability. * The district court’s orders on Davis’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684-85 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense- 3 - with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19276-19277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1970]


Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 23 Under Alternative Site 
Framework Buffalo, New York

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15

[[Page 19277]]

CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization 
of zones;
    Whereas, the County of Erie, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 23, 
submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-82-2014, docketed 
11-13-2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service 
area of Erie County, New York, in and adjacent to the Buffalo Customs 
and Border Protection port of entry, FTZ 23's existing Site 1 would be 
categorized as a magnet site, existing Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 would 
be categorized as usage-driven sites, and existing Sites 2, 3, 7 and 8 
would be removed from the zone;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (79 FR 68854, 11-19-2014) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 23 under the ASF is approved, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the 
zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that would 
terminate authority for Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 if no foreign-status 
merchandise is admitted for a bona fide customs purpose within three 
years from the month of approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of April 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-08330 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 97-50737 Summary Calendar

_______________

ADRIAN A. MILES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JEFFREY P. LAMB, Sergeant, Hughes Unit,

and BRIAN K. ROWE,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(W-95-CV-323)

_________________________
October 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Adrian Miles, a state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint allegin g excessive use of force and deliberate

indifference to his safety. Miles appeals the magistrate judge’s

denial of his motion for appointmen t of counsel. S ee 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). We review for abuse of discretion. J ackson v. Dallas1 Miles has also moved for appointment of appellate counsel. Because he has

not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, this motion is denied.

2 Police Dep’t
, 811 F.2d 260, 261 ( 5th Cir. 1986). Finding no

reversible error, we affirm. 1

I.

No automatic right to counsel exists in a § 1983 case. C upit

v. Jones
, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Instead, we appoint

counsel only in t hose cases in which “exceptional circumstances”

are present. I d

. In determining whether exceptional circumstances

exist, “two basic factors” control: “the type and complexity of the

case, and the abilities of the individual bringing it.” B ranch v.

Cole

, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Although from time to

time we have elaborated on these factors, see Ulmer v. Chancellor

,

691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982) (listing “type and complexity” of

case; indigent’s ability to present case; i ndigent’s ability to

investigate case; and indigent’s “skill in . . . presentation” as

factors), case complexity and indigent ability predominate. See

Cupit, 835 F.2d at 86; Robbins v. Maggio

, 750 F.2d 405, 4 12 (5th

Cir. 1985) (citing Branch

, 686 F.2d at 266). Indeed, the

“additional” factors listed in Ulmer are merely functions of case

complexity and indigent ability.

The magistrate judge fo und that Miles’s case “is not . . .

complex, nor does it raise any new or novel issues. Additionally,

the pleadings filed herein, indicate that the Plaintiff is able to

litigate the action pro se .” Because the record supports this3

determination, the court did not abuse its discretion. While a

more detailed explanation of the findings would have facilitated

our review, we hasten to add that on a record as clearly devoid of

“exceptional circumstances” as this one, even purely conclusional

determinations can be upheld on appeal. See J ackson

, 811 F.2d

at 261.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3667 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3667

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 2, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, as the ``Clyde L. 
                   Hillhouse Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CLYDE L. HILLHOUSE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Clyde L. Hillhouse Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clyde L. 
Hillhouse Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 1, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Deployed Airman receives Christmas phone call from President Obama

/ Published Dec. 26, 2012

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan - "Hello, President Obama? ... I'm great, how are you?"

So began the most memorable phone call of a six-month deployment for Senior Airman Keshia Shutts with the 451st Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron here, who received a Christmas morning phone call from President Barack Obama.

The Commander-in-Chief thanked Shutts for her service and asked if she had been able to talk to her 3-year old daughter, Sienna, back home in Angola, Ind. He also asked if Shutts, who is engaged, had set a date for the ceremony.

"September 1, 2013," she replied. "You're more than welcome to attend our wedding."

Shutts, originally from Montpelier, Ohio, is deployed from the 121st Logistics Readiness Squadron of the 121st Air Refueling Wing, Ohio Air National Guard, located at Rickenbacker International Airport in Columbus, Ohio.

She is nearing the end of a six-month deployment to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, where she started off in aerial port, and for the last five months has worked as an administrative assistant in the squadron's command section. She was nominated by wing leadership to receive the call from Obama in recognition of her outstanding performance.

"Airman Shutts conducts herself as a true quality Airman," said Lt. Col. Manuel Perez, the 451st ELRS commander. "She demands perfection and professionalism, and she really sets the example."

In addition to her official duties, Shutts has volunteered at the Role 3 hospital, at the USO and as a victim advocate in the wing's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program. She also volunteered 12 hours to mentor 30 Afghan children at the local Kandahar Bazaar school.

Volunteering at the hospital and working with the Afghan children have been two highlights of her deployment, she said.

Since Shutts has been at KAF, she has also completed Airman Leadership School and is pursuing her second Bachelor's Degree, in nursing.

"For me, nominating her was a no-brainer," Perez said. "If I had to pick my No. 1 Airman in the squadron, it would be her."

Shutts, who has been selected for staff sergeant and will sew on next month, said it was an honor to be selected to receive the phone call from the president.

"It was awesome," she said of the call. "Definitely a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-10931 Summary Calendar

__________________
THOMAS GIL STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

and MESQUITE, TX., CITY OF; WILLIAM SIPES, Officer, UNNAMED JAILERS, Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-0877-T

---------------------- July 6, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Thomas Gil Stewart (Texas prisoner # 571499) appeals from the district court's dismissal of his suit for failure to comply with

a court order that he cease filing scandalous materials. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Stewart's suit. Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir.No. 96-10931 -2- 1992). This appeal lacks arguable merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
It is DISMISSED as such. Stewart's multiple outstanding motions

are DENIED as moot. The Appellees' motion for sanction is GRANTED.
Stewart is BARRED from filing any pleadings or documents of any kind, either in the district courts of this circuit or in this court, without advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. Any attempt by Stewart to file frivolous pleadings in the future will result in further sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; STEWART'S MOTIONS DENIED AS MOOT;
APPELLEES' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS GRANTED; BAR TO FILINGS RAISED.
ex10-1.htm








EXHIBIT 10.1


 



Amendment No. 2 to


Kaydon Corporation


1999 Long Term Stock Incentive Plan


(amended and restated effective October 23, 2008)


 

 


Pursuant to action of the Board of Directors of the Company on April 29, 2013, Section 4(a)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated effective as of April 29, 2013, to read as follows:


 


           (i)           Initial and Aggregate Authorization. There shall be 1,645,000 Shares initially available for issuance under the Plan.  Following the acquisition of the full number of acquired Shares described in clause (ii) below, there shall be an aggregate of 3,645,000 Shares available for issuance under the Plan.


 


Except as modified by this Amendment No. 2, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof.
**Exhibit
31.1**
 SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I,
Eric Stonestrom, certify that:
 
 1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Airspan Networks, Inc.
(“Airspan”);
 
 2.  Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of Airspan as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  Airspan’s
other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for Airspan and have:
 
 a.  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to Airspan, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b.  evaluated
the effectiveness of Airspan’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 
 c.  disclosed
in this report any change in Airspan’s internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during Airspan’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Airspan’s internal
control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  Airspan’s
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Airspan’s auditors
and the audit committee of Airspan’s board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):
 
 a.  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect Airspan’s ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
 
 b.  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in Airspan’s internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 Date:
April 27, 2005
 ****By:
    /s/
      ERIC STONESTROMEric
      StonestromChief Executive
      Officer
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549


FORM 8‐K


CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  October 1, 2013


XRS Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Minnesota0-2716641-1641815(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)(CommissionFile No.)(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)








965 Prairie Center DriveEden Prairie, Minnesota55344(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)


Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (952) 707-5600


Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions ( see General Instruction A.2. below):


o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))











---




Item 5.02    Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers





XRS Corporation's (the “Company ”) Chief Technology Officer Odell Tuttle's ("Mr. Tuttle") employment with the Company has ended effective October 1, 2013. Mr. Tuttle is eligible to receive the severance benefits as provided in his offer letter previously filed as Exhibit 10.20 to the Company’s Form 10-K filed on December 17, 2012. Effective October 1, 2013, Brendan Reidy, the Company's current President and Chief Operating Officer, also assumed the role of Chief Technology Officer.





Item 9.01.Financial Statements and Exhibits


(d) Exhibits


99.1Press Release dated October 2, 2013








---




SIGNATURE


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


Dated:    October 1, 2013XRS CORPORATIONBy:/s/  Michael W. WeberMichael W. WeberChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,303,540
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,132,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,445,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,694,565
<PP&E>                                      28,360,953
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,621,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,709,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,835,523
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,936
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,769,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,709,600
<SALES>                                     27,076,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,810,887
<CGS>                                       20,603,355
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,920,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               494,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,350,547)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,350,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,350,547)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>