alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Timothy WIMS, a/k/a Timothy Derrinado Davis, a/k/a John Darren Delgado, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI EDGEFIELD, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6224

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 15, 2017

Timothy Wims, Appellant Pro Se,

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Wims, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed *207the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although,we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm. *See Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 894-95, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017) (United States Sentencing Guidelines not subject to void for vagueness challenge and therefore *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), did not invalidate the residual clause of the definition of a crime of violence under the Guidelines). 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                            43,948
<SECURITIES>                                       7,973
<RECEIVABLES>                                     38,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  93,506
<PP&E>                                            25,311
<DEPRECIATION>                                    12,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   693,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             63,763
<BONDS>                                           76,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             457
<OTHER-SE>                                       244,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     693,914
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 210,733
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 162,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                11,580
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   30,431
<INCOME-TAX>                                      13,237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               17,194
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      17,194
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .36



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC. 

FAA Order No. 2015-3 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0045 1 

Served: July 16,2015 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL' 

By notice served on July 14, 2015, Complainant withdrew its appeal of the initial 

decision served by Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivan on May 28, 2015. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Complainant's appeal is dismissed. 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR 

Federal Aviation Administration 

)U)Lr 

t VICKI S. LEEMON3 

\' Manager, Adjudication Branch 

1 Generally, materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket are also available for viewing at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(e)(l). 

2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the rules of 

practice, and other information, are available on the Internet at the following address: 

www .faa.gov/about/office _ org/headquarters _offices/age/pol_ adjudication/ AGC400/Civil_Penalty/. See 

14 C.F.R. § 13.210(e)(2). In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation 

Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw (FTRANFAA database). For additional information, see the Web site. 

3 Issued under authority delegated to the Chief Counsel and the Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Litigation by memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.202 

(see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation to the 

Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memkjkorandum dated August 6, 1993.
Colleen GIAMBERINI And Andrew Giamberini, Appellants, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a The Bank of New York, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2756

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02477]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-308-310 and 520-521 (Fifth Review)]


Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Brazil, China, Japan, 
Taiwan, and Thailand

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings from Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on July 1, 2021 (86 FR 
35133) and determined on October 4, 2021 that it would conduct 
expedited reviews (86 FR 72620, December 22, 2021).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on February 2, 2022. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5276 (February 2022), 
entitled Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Brazil, China, 
Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand: Investigation Nos. 731 TA 308-310 and 520-
521 (Fifth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 2, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-02477 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1997
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      320
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,965
<PP&E>                                          65,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,770
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,952
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,770
<SALES>                                         11,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,176
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,351<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (66)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (111)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (111)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $471 OF ONE-TIME CHARGES RELATED TO GLACIER'S ACQUISITION OF
AQUA-VEND.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, FOR THE
YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,327
<PP&E>                                         788,110
<DEPRECIATION>                               (377,928)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,140,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          718,660
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,077
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,143,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,140,796
<SALES>                                        865,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               865,571
<CGS>                                          679,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  679,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,796,533
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,629,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,629,285)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12**

 

**CONSENT OF DAVID W. RENNIE**

 

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-Fof New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connectionwith, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the New Afton Mine,British Columbia, Canada”, dated March 23, 2015, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financialyear ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statementon Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

  

Dated this 27 day of March, 2015

 

 

*/s/ David W. Rennie *

David W. Rennie, P.Eng.
exv10w63






Exhibit 10.63




December 29, 2008




Lisa Koch-Hulle




[Address]




Re: First Amendment to Offer of Employment




Dear Lisa:




     This letter amends the terms of the Offer of Employment (the “Agreement”) dated as of March
4, 2008, by and between La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company (“LJPC”) and you as set forth below.
Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning specified in the Agreement.



     1. The seventh paragraph of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:




“If your employment is terminated by Company for other than Cause, you will receive a severance
amount equal to 6 months of your then current base salary, which will be paid on the first payroll
date that occurs 30 days after the date of termination of service, provided you sign a
separation agreement in a form acceptable to Company, including a complete release of claims within
21 days of the date of termination of service and you do not revoke the release. For purposes of
this offer letter, “Cause” shall mean your employment is terminated for dishonesty, misconduct,
failure or inability to perform your job duties (with reasonable accommodation, if required by
law), or other conduct that has a material adverse effect on the name or public image of Company.”



     2. Except as amended herein, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in all other respects and
nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver of any right or abrogation of any obligation
otherwise existing under the Agreement except to the extent specifically provided for herein.



 









 





Lisa Koch-Hulle

Page 2




     Please indicate your acceptance of this amendment to the Agreement by signing the enclosed copy of
this letter and returning it to me.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Deirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.
 

Deirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 






	 	 	 
	Accepted and agreed:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Lisa Koch-Hulle
 

Lisa Koch-Hulle
#### William J. NEAL, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Faye DANIELS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6165

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

*147William Jackson Neal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Jackson Neal, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Neal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in formal pau-peris, deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. The motions to supplement and to correct the record are denied. 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.

*DISMISSED*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1507 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1507

To require each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to include 
   a link to a 100-word plain language summary of the proposed rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2021

 Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself and Mr. Golden) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to include 
   a link to a 100-word plain language summary of the proposed rule.

    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 ``Providing Accountability Through 
Transparency Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100-WORD SUMMARY TO REGULATIONS.GOV.

    Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) the Internet address of a summary of not more than 
        100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, 
        that shall be posted on the Internet website under section 
        206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) 
        (commonly known as regulations.gov).''.
                                 <all>
```
Jhaphelix ROBINSON, DOC #R50084, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3238

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
a5925473ex10_11.htm


    Exhibit
10.11

    


    


    


    Mr.
Michael J. Kroll

    22 Oak
St.

    Uxbridge,
MA  01569

    


    Dear
Mike:

    


    This
letter will confirm the April 4, 2007 agreement between Valpey-Fisher
Corporation (the “Company”) and you concerning amounts payable to you as
severance in the event of a change in control of the Company.

    


    The
Company and you agree that effective August 7, 2008 the first paragraph of the
Letter Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

    


    “This
letter will confirm the April 4, 2007 agreement between
Valpey-Fisher

       Corporation
(the “Company”) and you concerning amounts payable to you

       as
severance in the event of a change in control of the Company prior
to

       December
31, 2010.”

    


    The
Company and you agree that effective August 7, 2008 the second paragraph of the
Letter Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

    


     “In
the event of a change in control of Valpey-Fisher prior to December 31,
2010,

       you
will be paid a 2x annual base salary as severance in the event you are
not

       offered
a position of Chief Financial Officer of the new control entity.”

    


    Please
indicate your agreement by signing this letter in the space provided
below.

     

     

    
       

       

      
        
          
            
              
                
                  	 
      	
                          Sincerely,

                        
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                          VALPEY-FISHER
      CORPORATION

                        
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                          By     

                        	
                          /s/ Ted Valpey, Jr.

                        
	 
      	 
      	
                          Ted
      Valpey, Jr.

                        
	 	 	Chairman


                

              

            

          

        

      

    

     

     

     

    
      AGREED AND
ACCEPTED:

      


      /s/ Michael J.
Kroll

      Michael J.
Kroll

       

      - 71
-
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July

11 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00525- CV

IN RE MATT GUERRE, D.D.S., 1220 AUGUSTA DENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC D/B/A COSMETIC DENTAL ASSOCIATES, AND

SPIKER DAVIS, D.D.S., Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-43848



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 2, 2019, relator s Matt Guerre, D.D.S., 1220 Augusta Dental Management, LLC d/b/a Cosmetic Dental Associates , and Spiker Davis, D.D.S. filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221;2

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this court to compel the Honorable Dedra Davis, presiding judge of the 270th District Court of Harris County , to set aside her May 28, 2019 orders granting the motion for sanctions and
the motion to compel filed by real party in interest

. Relato rs also filed an emergency motion for temporary relief.
Relators have not presented a sufficient record to establish their entitlement
to relief. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief without prejudice.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.