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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 7469

MARION L. SHERROD

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

COLBERT L. RESPASS; SEAN DILLARD; CAPTAIN OLIVER; MARCEL
SLEDGE

, Defendants

- Appellees

and

GEORGE T. SOLOMON; FELIX TAYLOR; NURSE PATTERSON; RAHIM AKBAR; HIRAM BEASLEY

,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:14

- ct

- 03252

- FL )

Submitted : July 26, 2018 Decided: July 30, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Marion L. Sherrod , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Marion L. Sherrod appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sherrod v.

Respass , No. 5:14

- ct

- 03252

- FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2017) . We deny Sherrod’s motion to

file an amended complaint, a motion more properly addressed to the district court, but

have considered the material as a supplement to his informal brief. We deny Sherrod’s

request for appointment of counsel

. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3941 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3941

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the temporary 
                     increase in unemployment tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 27, 2009

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the temporary 
                     increase in unemployment tax.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TEMPORARY INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking ``equal to--'' and all that follows through ``of 
the total wages'' and inserting the following: ``equal to 6.0 percent 
of the total wages''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to wages paid during months beginning after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7799

PHILLIP ALVIN JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden/Designee; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-02337-JFM)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Alvin Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Alvin Jones seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his two motions seeking reconsideration 

of the order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating 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 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CONRADO TORRES-GAYTAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50653

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01125-MMA-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Conrado Torres-Gaytan appeals his 120-month sentence imposed following

his guilty plea for importing approximately 53 pounds of cocaine in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and

FILED

DEC 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

28 U.S.C. § 1291. United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.

2007) (en banc). We dismiss the appeal.

The record shows that Torres knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to

appeal the district court’s imposition of the mandatory minimum 120-month

sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(i). See United States v. Charles, 581 F.3d

927, 931 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that appeal waiver requires dismissal if it

encompasses the right to appeal on the grounds raised and the waiver is knowing

and voluntary); United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)

(finding that a court “will generally enforce the plain language of a plea agreement

if it is clear and unambiguous on its face”). The plain terms of the plea agreement

provide that Torres may not appeal his sentence unless “the Court imposes a

custodial sentence above the . . . statutory mandatory minimum, if applicable.” See

United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that defendant’s

claim that district court erred in calculating sentence was precluded by appeal

waiver that applied to any sentence within guideline range). Moreover, the

magistrate judge who took the plea adhered to the requirements of Rule 11. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 987 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The district court judge’s failure to determine the scope of the appeal waiver at

sentencing does not make the appeal waiver unenforceable; he did not tell the
3

defendant that he could appeal. See id. Therefore, we will enforce the valid appeal

waiver and dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED.
* 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. 96-50267 Conference Calendar

DANNY LEON LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CV-383

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Danny Leon Lucas (Texas prisoner #390541) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders; nevertheless, he has failed to brief any issue for appeal. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Lucas has not briefed anNo. 96-50267 - 2 - appealable issue. His appeal is deemed abandoned and is
DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. We caution Lucas that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lucas is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
LNCE-3.30.2013-EX10.5




        
Exhibit 10.5






13024 Ballantyne Corporate Place
Harris Building Suite 900
Charlotte, NC  28277
(704) 554-1421


February 8, 2013 










Michael A. Warehime 
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. 
1250 York Street 
Hanover, PA  17331


Re:  Compensation 


Dear Mike,


This is to confirm that pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of July 21, 2010, as amended, among Lance, Inc., Lima Merger Corp. and Snyder’s of Hanover, Inc., your compensation for serving as Chairman of the Board of Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. has been set for 2013 as the same as for 2012 and as specified in my letter to you of February 9, 2012. 


Very truly yours, 


/s/ David V. Singer


David V. Singer 
Chief Executive Officer
Promissory Note and Terms of Loan

On this date, July 9, 1997, Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A. agrees to loan Royal 
Casino Group the sum of $30,000.  The loan will be secured by the 10,000 
shares of Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A. stock, which Royal Casino Group 
currently owns.

Terms:

Royal agrees not to sell the 10,000 shares of Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A. 
common stock unless it is to use the proceeds to pay off the loan.

The loan will bear 0% interest for the first three months and then convert to 
a loan bearing interest of 7% per year as of the beginning of the fourth 
month, October 10, 1997. If the loan is not paid off by October 10,1997, a 
payment schedule will be given to Royal Casino Group by Gaming Venture Corp., 
U.S.A.

Royal Casino Group can pay part or all of this loan at any time.

In the event that Royal Casino Group defaults on the loan, Royal must deliver 
to Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A., the stock certificate for the 10,000 shares 
of Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A. common stock and give the difference between 
the value of the shares and the balance of the loan including accrued interest 
in shares of Royal Casino Group stock with registration rights.


Signatures below is proof of acceptance of the terms and structure of this 
loan. A statement must be supplied showing proof of ownership of 10,000 shares 
of Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A. common stock.


Alan R. Woinski
TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKSPSP 601−5Page1 of 3Jul 08/2013TR5−262TEMPORARY REVISION NO.5−262INSERT IN SECTION 5−10−30FACING PAGE 55REASON FOR ISSUE:To revise the interval and add a PHASE−IN rule for task 57-40-00-175* (Outboard Flap − Hinge Box ForwardLugs) and to add a new task 57-40-01-101* (Inboard Flap − Hinge Box Forward Lugs).ACTION:Replace task 57-40-00-175* with the tasks that follow:NOTE:Recordthe incorporation of this Temporary Revision on the yellow RECORD OF TEMPORARY REVISIONSand the LIST OF EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheets at the front of this publication.TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKSPSP 601−5Page2 of 3Jul 08/2013TR5−262MAINTENANCEMANUAL − CH. 5REFERENCEZONEACCESSCHECKINTERVALCHAPTER 57 CHECKSDESCRIPTION57−40−00−175*Outboard Flap − Hinge Box Forward Lugs.NDT Check. 8000 T(Ref. PSP 612, Part 6, ET−57−40−10, Part B) LANDINGS3600 RLANDINGSSee NOTEPHASE-IN:For aircraft with more than 7500 Landings but notmore than 11350 Landings at the date of thisTemporary Revision, do this check within 500Landings but not later than 11600 Landings.For aircraft with more than 11350 Landings at thedate of this Temporary Revision, do this checkwithin the next 250 Landings.584684581−BB −DB −FB584−BB −DB −FB681−BB −DB −FB684−BB −DB −FBTIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKSPSP 601−5Page3 of 3Jul 08/2013TR5−262MAINTENANCEMANUAL − CH. 5REFERENCEZONEACCESSCHECKINTERVALCHAPTER 57 CHECKSDESCRIPTION57−40−01−101*Inboard Flap − Hinge Box Forward Lugs.NDT Check. 7900 T(Ref. PSP 612, Part 6, ET−57−40−10, Part A) LANDINGS7100 RLANDINGSSee NOTEPHASE-IN:For aircraft with more than 7400 Landings but notmore than 14850 Landings at the date of thisTemporary Revision, do this check within 500Landings but not later than 15100 Landings.For aircraft with more than 14850 Landings at thedate of this Temporary Revision, do this checkwithin the next 250 Landings.572672571−CB−FB572−DB−GB671−CB−FB672−DB−FB
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00071-CV

EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER REGION 2

v.

GLOBAL SPECTRUM, LP D/B/A SPECTRA VENUE

MANAGEMENT AND NUECES COUNTY

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019CCV-61753-2

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in 

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellees.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 30, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         9,893
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                   8
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,386
<PP&E>                                         440,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          62,757
<BONDS>                                        178,920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,233
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               36,845
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  21,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11,764
<INCOME-TAX>                                   408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,356
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.68
        

</TABLE>
New Mexico Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revisions September 5, 2013

NM064-03-01 Enclosures to New Mexico State Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revisions submitted to EPA October 7, 2013

NM064-03-02 Chapter 10, Section 309 Revised State Implementation Plan

NM064-03-03 Appendix D – Revised New Mexico BART Determination for San Juan Generating Station

NM064-03-04 NMED Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony – August 16, 2013

NM064-03-05 NMED Ex. 1 Clean Air Act § 169A and 169B NM064-03-06 NMED Ex. 2 40 C.F.R. § 51.308 NM064-03-07 NMED Ex. 3 40 C.F.R. § 51.309 NM064-03-08 NMED Ex. 4 BART Guidelines – Appendix Y to 40 C.F.R. Part 51 Published at 70 Fed. Reg. 39104 NM064-03-09 NMED Ex. 5 “Term Sheet” between U.S. EPA, NMED, and PNM NM064-03-10 NMED Ex. 6 BART Analysis Addendum, PNM San Juan Generating Station, April 1, 2013 NM064-03-11 NMED Ex. 7 Affidavits of publication of public hearing notices NM064-03-12 NMED Ex. 8 Public Comments Submitted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management NM064-03-13 NMED Ex. 9 Public Comments Submitted by the National Park Service NM064-03-14 NMED Ex. 10 Testimony of Ted Schooley NM064-03-15 NMED Ex. 10a Resume of Ted Schooley NM064-03-16 NMED Ex. 11 Testimony of Elizabeth Bisbey-Kuehn NM064-03-17 NMED Ex. 11a Resume of Elizabeth Bisbey-Kuehn NM064-03-18 NMED Ex. 12 Testimony of Gi-Dong Kim NM064-03-19 NMED Ex. 12a Resume of Gi-Dong Kim
NM064-03-20 NMED Ex. 13 Resume of Rita Bates NM064-03-21 NMED Ex. 14 NMED responses to comments of the National Park Service NM064-03-22 NMED Ex. 15 Proposed statement of reasons for adoption of regulatory changes

NM064-03-23 Public Service Company of New Mexico Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony – August 16, 2013

NM064-03-24 NMED Notice of Publication of Hearing Notice and Public Review Drafts – July 2, 2013

NM064-03-25 Attachment 1 Chapter 10 Public Review Draft NM064-03-26 Attachment 2 Appendix D Public Review Draft NM064-03-27 Attachment 3 Redline/strikeout of Changes between NOI version and Public Review Draft of Chapter 10 NM064-03-28 Attachment 4 Redline/strikeout of Changes between NOI version and Public Review Draft of Appendix D

NM064-03-29 Public Comments Received by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board

NM064-03-30 EarthJustice/Western Environmental Law Center – September 3, 2013 NM064-03-31 Alex J. and Felicity B. Gonzales – August 19, 2013 NM064-03-32 EDL Consulting – August 23, 2013
NM064-03-33 Irvin & Norma Jean Jones – undated NM064-03-34 Robert E. Reed – August 26, 2013

NM064-03-35 NMED Exhibit Presented at September 5, 2013 Hearing

NM064-03-36 NMED Ex. 16 Corrections to Chapter 10 and Appendix D

NM064-03-37 Transcript of Hearing – September 5, 2013

NM064-03-38 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board Statement of Reasons for Adoption of SIP Revisions



### ***********************************end*****************************************
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Theodore E. Charles, certify that this amendment to report on Form 10-K fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and  that  information  contained  in this  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd.


Date: July 14, 2005

BY: /S/ THEODORE  E. CHARLES
-----------------------------------------
Theodore E. Charles, Chairman, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Director



                                       10
Connecticut Department of ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www .ct .gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

July 11, 2012 David Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch US EPA- New

England 5 Post Office Square- Suite 100 (Mail Code OEP05-2) Boston, MA02109-3912 Re: Commitment Regarding the CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) Portion of Connecticut's Infrastructure Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2,5 NAAQS Dear Mr
. Conroy: The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing the regulatory infrastructure requirements of §1 10(a)(1) and (2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PMZ.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) on September 4, 2008 and September 18, 2009, respectively
. Subsequent clarifications to those submissions, requested by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), were submitted onJanuary 7, 2011 and August 19, 2011
. Most recently, your staffhas requested we specifically incorporate the NAAQS into our regulations
. We understand that EPAis now preparing conditional approvals ofthese SIP revisions and has requested DEEP provide a commitment to submit such a revision to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
. As required by EPAstaff, DEEPhereby commitsto provide a statement of legal authority and/or pursue adoption of any necessary regulatory revisions to meet the requirements of Section i 10(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year fromthe date onwhich EPAfinalizes conditional approval of Connecticut's PM2,5 infrastructure submissions
. Connecticut appreciates EPA's efforts to move fonvard swiftly with conditional approval ofthe Infi~astructure SIP revisions and approval ofConnecticut's redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision for the PM2 .5 NAAQS, submitted on June 22, 2012
. Redesignation of Connecticut's portion ofthe New

York/New

Jersey/Connecticut area to attainment will formally recognize the public health benefits fromthe successful implementation of federal and state control programs. Furthermore, redesignation will streamline the permitting process, thereby reducing regulatory burdens and supporting economic growth in the Connecticut portion ofthe area. Thankyou for your assistance expediting the approval ofthis SIP and redesignation
. Sincerely, aw r-4 Anne Gobin, Chief Bureau of Air Management