alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 30700 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM R. ABBOTT ,
P etitioner

- Appellant

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18

- CV

- 394

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and GRAVES and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
William R

. Abbott, federal prisoner # 57819

- 083 , pleaded guilty of attempting to entice minor s to engage in illegal sexual acts and of transporting child pornography. He has appealed the district court ’ s judgment dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he asserted that he is actually innocent.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 14, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-30700 Document: 00514956778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2019No. 18

- 30700

2 U nder the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a § 2241 petition that attacks custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained if the petiti oner shows that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); see also § 2255(e). Abbott has failed to make the required showing that his conte ntions ar e based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision , which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and were foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claims should have been raised in his trial, appeal,

o r first § 2255 motion. See Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893 , 904 (5th Cir. 2001) ; see also Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830

- 31. The a ppeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Abbott is WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court ’ s jurisdiction. Abbott should
review a ny pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive. Case: 18-30700 Document: 00514956778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2019
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00209- CV

In re Ruben Guer rer o

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator R uben Guer

rer o has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. I n the petition, Guer

rer o asks this Court to direc t the Travis County District C l er k t o d el i v er to the Texas Cou rt of Criminal Appea ls documents conce rning a habea s corpus proce eding filed pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(c ) (West Supp. 2011).

Article 11.07 vests exclusive appell at e j urisdiction over post-conviction writs of habea s corpus in fe lony case s in the court of criminal appea ls. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex r el

. K ee ne v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W .2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 9 5 ); In re W atson , 253 S.W .3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2008, orig
. proce eding ). Thus, intermediate appellate courts h ave no jurisdiction in such matters. See In re Briscoe , 230 S.W .3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006, orig
. proce eding ); In re McAfe e , 53 S.W .3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig . proce eding ).Acc ording ly , we dismiss the petition for want of jur isdiction.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Apr il 12, 2012

2
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00460

- CV

SHERRI RATHER & ALL

OCCUPANTS APPELLANT

V.

PARADISE HILLS APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AN D JUDGMENT

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

On November 19, 2012, and December 1 0 , 2012 , we notified appellant, in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appel lant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 28, 2007, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 14 , 2013

2 See Supre me Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing

fees in courts of appeals).
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.4




July 1, 2015




To: Leonard DeBenedictis


Re: Reduction in Work Schedule




Dear Len:


The purpose of this letter agreement is to modify certain terms of your employment as set forth in your Amended and Restated Employee Offer Letter dated February 25, 2014 (the “Employee Offer Letter”).  The changes set forth herein shall be effective on July 1, 2015, provided that you have signed this letter agreement by that date (the “Effective Date”).    


The terms to be modified are as follows:  


Section 1 (Position; Duties; Location)    


Add the following:   On the Effective Date, you will begin to work a reduced schedule of 80%, representing 32-hours per week.


Section 2(a)(Base Salary):


Change the base salary from an annual rate of $300,000 to an annual rate of $240,000.


Section 3 (Benefits):


Add the following:  Your Paid Time Off (PTO) accrual will be pro-rated based on the reduction of your work schedule.  As such, you will accrue 8.0 hours of PTO each month.  


Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms of your Employee Offer Letter shall remain in full force and effect.  


This letter agreement, together with your Employee Offer Letter and your Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement, set forth the full and complete agreement between you and the Company regarding your employment with the Company.  Any additional or contrary terms, representations, offers or agreements, whether written or oral, that may have been made to you are hereby revoked and superseded in their entirety by this letter agreement.  This letter agreement, along with your Employee Offer Letter, only may be modified in a written document signed by a duly-authorized officer of the Company.  


To indicate your acceptance of the Company’s offer, please sign and return a copy to me by close of business Thursday, July 2, 2015.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JOHNNY DREW,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-217
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)
(DOC. 20); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $5,200.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint
stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees and costs under the
Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $5,200.00. Doc. 20.
Based upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met
for the reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation
(doc. 20); and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees and costs in the amount of $5,200.00. As no
further matters remain pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s
docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: &-5°17 LY, NOX

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
Exhibit 10.1


Summary of Compensation
Arrangements with Certain Persons

The  Bank's  executive  officers  do not  have  employment  agreements  with the
Registrant. Their salaries as of February 28, 2009 were as follows:

                       Tri City      Tri City        Tri City
Name                  Bankshares   National Bank   Capital Corp.      Total
                      ----------   -------------   ------------    ----------
Ronald K. Puetz       $  40,000     $  385,000     $     1,500     $  426,500
Robert W. Orth        $  20,000     $  313,000     $     1,000     $  334,000
Scott A. Wilson       $  20,000     $  283,000     $     1,000     $  304,000
Scott D. Gerardin     $   5,000     $  162,000                     $  167,000



In addition,  executive officers are eligible to participate in the Bank's bonus
plan.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7291

JAMES R. JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:05-cv-02424-CMC) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: James R. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### SECURITY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. CENTRAL ARKANSAS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION and ARKANSAS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION BOARD

74-356

521 S.W. 2d 220

Opinion delivered April 14, 1975

*Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldredge and Clark,*by: *Hermann Ives ter,*for appellant.

*Lester and Schults,*by: *Edward Lester,*for appellees.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Following the remand of this case to the Arkansas Savings and Loan Association Board pursuant to our decision in *Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass'n Board*v. *Central Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass'n,*256 Ark. 864, 510 S.W. 2d 872 (1974), the Arkansas Savings and Loan Association Board again sustained the protest of appellant Security Savings & Loan Association by denying Central Arkansas Savings & Loan Association’s application for a charter. Before the order denying the application had been served upon the parties, appellant’s counsel picked up a copy of the order at the Board’s office and, notwithstanding that his protest had been sustained, filed an appeal in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County. Thereafter appellee, Central Arkansas Savings and Loan Association, filed an appeal in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County. The Circuit Court of Pulaski County upon motion transferred the appeal pending therein to the Circuit Court of Faulkner County. From that order appellant brings this appeal which we dismiss for the reasons stated in *Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass’n Board*v. *Corning Savings & Loan Ass’n,*252 Ark. 264, 478 S.W. 2d 431 (1972).

Appeal dismissed.
TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

TODAY' S DATE: 

Chris, 

. ··,: 

'-::' 

' ; .·:·~ ~-~~:·. 

ME.MO 

,·. . -~· 

Chris Donovan 

. 'I . ' . 

. ,··- ' .. . , .. · .... 

~ -~.- > ... ' '' 

·Russ Maguire · .:·.\ · , "'·t<.X..'> , . , 

On-Airport Construction Filings . ·· January 28, 2013 ···.·. ;:. · · 

·. ' 

' • Please • • ·' .... 1." see attached a reference sheet that shovld help to simplity.the. process 

of filing your on-airport. co'nstruction project. ·As you . can see, separate 

filings are required for both FAA (FAA forrn.7460}'and MasspOT. . . . .. .. · . . <·· . : :·x·· .. ~ ;,::r ~.''\· . . :. ·.··:D> ... . 

For the 7460 filing, I've also attached a separate ::gui<ielines·· sheet. This . . ' . ' . . ... . . . . .. ' . . ; . ... ,. . . . ·, -··· \·· ' .. · 

references data requireme~ts that should be s}1are~ty,ritl,f'· M. a.~ · Part of its 

evaluatl.on process. · 

. 

... 

'. 

· '· · · '<·•: ·· :~··. · .. , · .;.:' ......... ,· ... ~· · ·· ,.. . ' . . ' -_; ~- ' ~ .: · ... 

·-; . 

If you have any questions about the FAA filing, . ple~se · ccmtac·t FAA's 

Tracey Mcinnis, at 781-238-7621. . For the Ma,ssDOT filing, Kathleen 

Mahoney would be a great resource, at 617.;412~3.689. · ' ' ' ' .. 

' '• 

' \ ' . .::,,.··. , .·1·•·· , •.. '. 

. -~ ~.. . 'o' • 'i-~·. '.' ' ' ' ,1 • ' I ' ~ ,:i_ 

:,, .. ' .· ,;,._ .. i ' ·-:·: !'I . 

\-: '\ /~,-;~ -_;.· ~: ~ ·_ 

.. 1.' 

. ·· .. ·' . 

·:· .. 

' 'i ' : •• • .-:~~ ~ ' 

. .. ~ . 

· .. -~ : . ~·.: .. ·: ·.. . 

' .. ,.
BH DEVELOPERS, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. CLASSICAL & INNOVATIVE DESIGNS, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-2115

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Transport Transports Canada Canada TP 7245E



# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your na me. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD ma y invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport Can ada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952-4357

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communicat ions Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8 , or 1-800-305-2059 , or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp 24-0022 (01-2005) 1/1 No

. CF-2010-32 Issue Date 30 September 2010

Number: CF-2010-32 Subject: Over-torque of Tailboom Attachment Hardware
Effective: 13 October 2010 Applicability: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. Model 427 helicopter serial number 56001 through 56084, 58001 and 58002. Compliance: Within 150 hours air time or 90 days, whichever comes first after the effective date of this directive, unless already accomplished. Background: A review of the tailboom attachment insta llation has determined that the torque value of the tailboom attachment bolts specified in the maintenance manual and applied during manufacturing, exceeded the torque range recommended for the bolts. This situation, if not corre cted, can lead to bolt failure, detachment of the tailboom and loss of control of the helicopter. To corre ct the problem, the tailboom attachment hardware has to be replaced.

Corrective Actions: Replace the tailboom attachment hardware and perform a torque check of the tailboom attaching bolts/nuts at all four attachment pos itions at intervals of no less than 1 but not exceeding 5 hours air time following hardware replacement until torque stabilizes at all positions. Carry out the above corrective actions in accordanc e with instructions outlined in Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 427- 10-31, dated 1 March 2010 or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada.
Authorization: For Minister of Transport, In frastructure and Communities
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Derek Ferguson Chief, Continuing Airworthiness
Contact: Bogdan Gajewski, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, facsimile 613-996-9178 or e-mail CAWWEBFeedback@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-1825

_____________________________

EDWIN TERRY WINFORD,

Appellant,

v.

FRIEDMAN INTEGRATED REAL 

ESTATE GROUP,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, III, Judge.

September 22, 2021

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. All pending motions are denied as moot.

RAY, JAY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Edwin Terry Winford, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 91 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Council on Environmental 

Quality relating to ‘‘National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Regulations Revisions’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2022 

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. MCCARTHY, Mr. SCALISE, Ms. 

STEFANIK, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. 

NEWHOUSE, and Mr. GRAVES of Missouri) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Council on Environmental Quality relating to ‘‘National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 

4 Council on Environmental Quality relating to ‘‘National 

5 Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations ReviVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:31 Jul 20, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ91.IH HJ91

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 91 IH 

1 sions’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 23453 (April 20, 2022)), and such 

2 rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
July 29, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

YIGAL BOSCH, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00623-CV V.

3 PARK’S ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A LAH CLEANERS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, 3 Park’s 

Enterprises, LLC d/b/a LAH Cleaners, signed May 17, 2013, was heard on the 

transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the 

judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Yigal Bosch, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 28 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 28

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 12, 2021

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Directing the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque 
 situated in the Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol 
for use in connection with services conducted for United States Capitol 
                    Police Officer William F. Evans.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Capitol Visitor Center 
to the rotunda of the Capitol so that such catafalque may be used in 
connection 

              

 with services to be conducted there for United States Capitol Police 
Officer William F. Evans.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 8, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 87 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 87

Authorizing the printing of a collection of the rules of the committees 
                             of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2019

   Mr. Blunt (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the printing of a collection of the rules of the committees 
                             of the Senate.

    Resolved, That a collection of the rules of the committees of the 
Senate, together with related materials, be printed as a Senate 
document, and that there be printed 250 additional copies of such 
document for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration.
                                 <all>
```