alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kevin SCHAAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan Stokley CLARY; Susan Stokley Clary, in her official capacity as clerk of the Supreme Court; Supreme Court of Kentucky; Commonwealth of Kentucky, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1232

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Kevin Schaap, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Schaap appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Schaap that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Schaap has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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 32.1
                                  ------------

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                                   SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                        ---------------------------------


The undersigned hereby certifies,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cumberland Technologies,  Inc. for the
     period ended June 30, 2003 as filed August 19, 2003 with the Securities and
     Exchange Commission,  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information  contained in the quarterly report fairly presents,  in all
     material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of
     Cumberland Technologies, Inc.




Dated:  August 19, 2003              By:  /s/ Joseph M. Williams
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Joseph M. Williams, President and Treasurer
                                     of Cumberland Technologies, Inc.
P.1 

OAR Box 1846 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

42) ll-E-2 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/18/2008 7:30:16 AM Sheet 42 of 93 
P.2 

TESTIMONY L 

Environmental Protection Agnecy 

Fuel and Fuel Additive Registration 

Public Hearing 

September 26, 1990 

Names of Testifiers 

*^>^jrww 

fompaifl(/Orqanization 

oo T 

4. T^V/.T^ L^ L--fe«l 

5,7?X>- CAI/A-ULJ 

i.M.L.flr\l48tS-lf8r 

», XX 

-^V x 

'e¥~-

Aw W ^*vj/ 

cV 

^1 Hfrf • fj-rtul. _i.~f7' 

Pr P I 

XT***. QL«iJ 

10 

n. 

12 

13. 

14. 

15 

9454W
#### Fenyang Ajamu STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle K. LEE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1816

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Fenyang Ajamu Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Gerald Romero, Jr., Office of the United States *783Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fenyang Ajamu Stewart appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stewart v. Lee, No. 1:16-cv-00213-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. filed June 15, 2016 & entered June 16, 2016). 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
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000799233
<NAME>                        Heartland Express, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                        0

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         126,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                       403
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,183
<PP&E>                                         139,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 246,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,508
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           265
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   246,494
<SALES>                                        261,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               261,004
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  216,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,536
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,123
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,123
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13


</TABLE>
Kelley ANDERSON, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D15-647

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 20, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Eric WORTHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3177

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 6153

EUGENE KING
,
Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.
ORANGEBURG COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; EDWARD DICKERSON, Administrative Judge, Individual and official capacity
,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. ( 5:23

- cv

- 01898

- TLW )

Submitted : September 5, 2024 Decided: September 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Eugene King , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6153 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Eugene King seeks to appeal the district court’s orde r denying his post

- judgment

motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, p arties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a )(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on October 17, 2023, and the appeal period
expired on November 16, 2023. King filed t he notice of appeal on February 9, 2024

. *

Because King failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
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

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on King’s declaration of inmate filing is the earliest date that King could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (1) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988). USCA4 Appeal: 24-6153 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law. Notice of Termination of Receiverships
Fund
Receivership name
City
State
Termination date10248
TierOne Bank
Lincoln
NE
02/01/202210312
Darby Bank and Trust Company
Vidalia
GA
02/01/202210537
First City Bank of Florida
Fort Walton Beach
FL
02/01/2022
 The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities. (Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on February 3, 2022. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2022-02564 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
October 22, 2015

Chris Saladin

Enterprise Systems Group

2305 Kelbe Dr.

Little Chute, WI 54140

Dear Saladin:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your August 6, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Enterprise Systems Group

filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-3386 but we are unable to process your request any further. 

Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to 

consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
Exhibit 10.84


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2


TO


SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”), dated as of January 12,
2009, amends that certain Severance Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered
into on April 4, 2008, by and between Force Protection, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), and Mark Edwards (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, in
order to correct a “scrivener’s error in the language in Section 5 of the
Agreement, the Company and the Executive desire to enter into this Amendment to
amend certain provisions of the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
for and in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and
agreements in the Agreement and herein, the Company and the Executive hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Capitalized Terms. 
Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have the
meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.


 


2.                                       Section 5 of the Agreement is amended in
its entirety to read as follows:


 


“5.                                 Payments Upon Non-Qualifying
Termination of Employment.  If the Executive’s employment with the
Company shall terminate by reason of a Nonqualifying Termination, then the
Company shall pay to the Executive (or the Executive’s beneficiary or estate)
within thirty (30) days following the Date of Termination, a lump-sum cash
amount equal to the Accrued Amounts (other than the amount described in Section 3(a)(ii) if
the Executive is terminated by the Company for Cause) and provide the Other
Benefits.”


 


3.                                       Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed (including by facsimile transmission confirmed
promptly thereafter by actual delivery of executed counterparts) in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


4.                                       Governing Law.  This
Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with,
the internal laws of the State of South Carolina without regard to the
principle of conflicts of laws.


 


5.                                       Headings.  Section headings
are for convenience only and shall not be considered a part of this Amendment.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment No. 2 to
be executed, effective as of the date first
written above.


 


 


	
   

  	
  FORCE PROTECTION, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Lenna Ruth Macdonald

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Lenna Ruth Macdonald

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Strategy
  Officer, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark Edwards

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Mark Edwards

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Executive Vice President, Development
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:18cv271
- Vs -
Judge Walter H. Rice
DAYTON INDUSTRIAL DRUM, INC., et al.

Defendants.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the above captioned cause be administratively processed.'

(Pac Ko

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

'Stayed at request of counsel pending consent decree in 3:16cv232.
#### Natalia Leshchenko WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tammy BROWN, Warden of the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7628

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 13, 2017

Alexey Valerievich Tarasov, Houston, Texas, for Appellant. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Natalia Leshchenko Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 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 ap-pealability 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 Wilson 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<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>                                           8,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,858
<PP&E>                                       1,388,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                 637,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 777,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,774
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   777,977
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,259
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1330 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1330

   To repeal changes made by health care reform laws to the Medicare 
    exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for 
                   hospitals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2021

Mr. Burgess (for himself, Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Wenstrup, 
Mr. Vela, Mr. Harris, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Babin, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mrs. 
Walorski, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Perry, Mr. Cole, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Hill, Mr. 
 Taylor, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Hern, Mr. 
   Griffith, and Mr. Cloud) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal changes made by health care reform laws to the Medicare 
    exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for 
                   hospitals, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Patient Access to Higher Quality 
Health Care Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM PROVISIONS LIMITING MEDICARE 
              EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PHYSICIAN 
              REFERRALS FOR HOSPITALS.

    Sections 6001 and 10601 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 684, 1005) and section 1106 of 
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 
111-152; 124 Stat. 1049) are repealed and the provisions of law amended 
by such sections are restored as if such sections had never been 
enacted.
                                 <all>
```