alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeremiah Lamont LUKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton B. JOYNER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6482

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Jeremiah Lamont Luke, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Jeremiah Lamont Luke seeks to appeal the district court’s order, entered on December 5, 2016, dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. Although the docketed notice of appeal Was received well outside the expiration of the appeal period, Luke declares that he previously delivered his original notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on December 13, 2016, within the 30-day appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Because Luke is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The record does not conclusively reveal when Luke delivered his earliest notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing, whether the institution in which Luke is confined has a separate legal mail system, and if so, whether Luke used that system to send his earliest notice of appeal. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district *168court to obtain this information from the parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and *Houston v. Lack.*The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6009 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 

to withdraw the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral 

leases and leasing process, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6009 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring American 

3 Energy Dominance Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF BLM PROPOSED RULE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau 

7 of Land Management shall withdraw the proposed rule of 

8 the Bureau of Land Management entitled ‘‘Fluid Mineral 

9 Leases and Leasing Process’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 47562 (July 

10 24, 2023)). 

11 (b) NO FURTHER ACTION.—The Director of the Bu12 reau of Land Management may not take any action to 

13 finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule described 

14 in subsection (a) or any substantially similar rule. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Pamela GODIN, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NA, Successor Trustee to Bank of America, NA, Successor in Interest to Lasalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, on Behalf of the Holders of the Bear Stearns, Backed Securities Trust 2005-2, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-2, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-596

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, Appellant, v. Orlando Martinez DE CASTRO, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D16-2421

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1557 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain credits 

related to solar energy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Mr. CRIST 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 extend 

certain credits related to solar energy. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sunshine Forever 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SOLAR ENERGY CREDIT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 48(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘January 1, 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2035’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1557 IH

1 (b) REPEAL OF PHASEOUT.—Section 48(a) of such 

2 Code is amended by striking paragraph (6). 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to property the construction of 

5 which begins after December 31, 2020. 

6 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF CREDITS WITH RESPECT TO QUALI7 FIED SOLAR ELECTRIC PROPERTY AND 

8 QUALIFIED SOLAR WATER HEATING PROP9 ERTY. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 25D(h) of the Internal 

11 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘(Decem12 ber 31, 2034, in the case of any qualified solar electric 

13 property expenditures and qualified solar water heating 

14 property expenditures)’’ before the period at the end. 

15 (b) PHASEOUT NOT APPLICABLE.—Section 25D(g) 

16 of such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘in the case of any 

17 expenditure other than any qualified solar electric prop18 erty expenditure or qualified solar water heating property 

19 expenditure,’’ after ‘‘For purposes of subsection (a),’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

22 December 31, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(18
U.S.C. 1350)



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk Communications Corp.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief,
that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Annual Report
    on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 Form
    10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 30, 2015 | /s/ Steven van
    der Velden                                                                 
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Steven van der Velden, President,
    Chief Executive Officer 
    Principal Executive Officer
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA - 2011 - 0939 Directorate ID: 2010 - SW - 067 -AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operat ors): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : to prevent failure of the upper end fitting ball joints of the main rotor servocontrols, failure of the upper end fittings, and loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : There are no costs of compliance assuming that there are no helicopters on the U.S. Registry with the affected part installed as represented by the manufacturer. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Gary Roach
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

March 21, 2018 

d0314 

Order 

 

Clerk 

March 21, 2018 

156032 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 156032 

 COA: 331151 

Wayne CC: 00-0011035-FH 

WALTER E. COX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 11, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
STATE OF NEVADA Jim Gibbons, Governor 

Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Allen 8iaggi, Director 

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Leo M. Drozdoff, P.£., Administrator 

Memorandum 

To: Neighboring States 

Arizona, Corky Martinkovic 

California, Tina Suarez-Murias 

Idaho, Mike Edwards 

Oregon, Brian Finneran 

Utah, Jim sChUbac/ . ~ A I (~ . I 

From: AdeleMalone.BV~~~ Subject: Regional Haze SIP -- Inter-State Coordination 

Date: January 6, 2009 

Nevada sent out its draft RH SIP to the Federal Land Managers yesterday, and we want to make 

it available to you as well. The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires each state to coordinate with 

any other state that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 

in a Class I area in the state or conversely, with any other state with a Class I area that it may 

impact. The state is supposed to consult with such states as it develops its reasonable progress 

goals for its Class I areas and as it develops emission management/long-term strategies. 

Thus far, the Western states have been coordinating through the WRAP. Now as a final step for 

this first SIP, Nevada is providing this opportunity for you to comment on our reasonable 

progress goals for the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and long-term strategy for managing emissions. 

Chapter Four ofNevada's SIP addresses "Visibility and Source Apportionment Modeling." It 

discusses source contributions, including those from individual WRAP states, to visibility 

impairment at the Jarbidge WA. Section 4.3.3 discusses Nevada's contribution to impairment at 

other Class I areas. Chapter Six addresses reasonable progress for the Jarbidge WA; Chapter 

Seven sets forth our long-term strategy for the first planning period. Section 7.9.3.2 ofChapter 

Seven assesses Nevada's contributions to impairment at Class I areas outside ofthe state. We 

would appreciate any comments you have on these specific topics or on the Nevada RH SIP in 

general. 

Nevada's RH SIP and BART support docwnents may be accessed at ftp.anonymous.state.nv.us 

(if control/click does not work, type this address into your browser). The user name is 

"ftp.anonymous" and the password is "stateftp". Once into the site, go to NDEPIBAQPIFLM 

Consultation - RH SIP. In addition to the SIP, you will find a subfolder called "BART 

Documents" in the FLM folder. BART analyses prepared by Nevada sources for units subject to 

BART are in that folder, as well as Nevada's review ofselected source analyses. Please note 

90 I S. Stewart Street. Suite 400 I • Carson City. Nevada 8970 I • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5856 • www.ndep.nv.gov 

printed on roqded poper 
January 6, 2009 

Memo to Neighboring States 

Page 2 

certain chapters in the SIP contain links to the NDEP web site for BART support documents, but 

the documents are not posted, yet. You must use the ftp site postings. 

We welcome comments as soon as possible, but would appreciate them no later than February 9. 

Thanks! 

cc:	 Michael Elges, Chief, BAQP, NDEP 

Greg Remer, Chief, BAPC, NDEP 

Bruce Polkowsky, NPS 

Eleanor Kaplan, EPA Region IX
Terrod PERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-799

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler and Stephen J. Weinbaum, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *G.E.G. v. State*, 417 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1982) (holding a defendant convicted of possession of a controlled substance cannot complain on appeal that the state failed to introduce the substance into evidence unless the defendant preserved this *1003claim by objecting at trial to its non-introduction); *McHolder v. State*, 917 So.2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (stating "McHolder argues that his due process rights were violated by his conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell because the State never introduced the cocaine evidence at trial. Because this argument was not made to the trial court, it was not preserved for appellate review"). *See also**Trinidad v. State*, 615 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ; *Priestly v. State*, 450 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Richard BURDETTE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DREIA LLC, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1664

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.4.1


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009


WHEREAS, TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted the TRINITY
INDUSTRIES, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009 (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, pursuant to those provisions of the Plan permitting the Company to amend the Plan, the Company has determined to
cease all benefit accruals under the Plan, effective as of the close of business March 31, 2009;


NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the close of business March 31, 2009:


		
	1.
	Section 3.01 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof to be and read as follows:




Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee shall not designate any Employee who does not participate in the Plan on March 31, 2009
as eligible to participate on or after such date.


		
	2.
	Section 4.01 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new subparagraph (d) at the end thereof to be and


read as follows:


(d) Cessation of Benefit Accrual . Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no further accrual of benefits under the Plan as of the close of business March 31, 2009.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed in its name and on behalf of this __day of      , 2009, effective as stated herein.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.


By:
Title:


ATTEST:




STATE OF        §
COUNTY OF        §
§


This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ____    day of , 2009, by of Trinity Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on
behalf of said corporation.


Notary Public in and for the
State of      


My Commission Expires:
**Exhibit 99**

Review Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants

The Board ofDirectorsCatalina Marketing Corporation

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as of September 30, 2002, and the relatedcondensed consolidated statements of income for the three- and six-month periods then ended and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six-month period then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’smanagement. The consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as of March 31, 2002, was audited by other accountants whose report dated April 18, 2002, expressed an unqualified opinion on the financial statements of which thatstatement is a part. The condensed consolidated financial statements of Catalina Marketing Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2001, were reviewed by other accountants whose report dated October 18, 2001, stated that they were not awareof any material modifications that should be made to those statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We conducted our review in accordance withstandards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible forfinancial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, which will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing anopinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to theaccompanying condensed consolidated financial statements at September 30, 2002, and for the three- and six-month periods then ended for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. 

|  |   |   |                                                           |
|--|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|  |   |   | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Tampa,FloridaOctober 31, 2002
  |
MERILLAT ROOFING, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Emilia GIANNAKOPOULIS, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0365

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
             Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share    
                (in thousands, except per share data)

                                       Quarter ended July 5,
                           ______________________________________  
                                  1997                1998
                           __________________  __________________ 
                                    Per Share           Per Share
                             Shares  Amount      Shares  Amount
                           ________ _________  ________ _________
       Basic EPS             11,231   $  0.35    11,450   $  0.44

       Effect of dilutive
        stock options           290     (0.01)      354     (0.02)
                           ________ _________  ________ _________
       Diluted EPS           11,521  $   0.34    11,804  $   0.42
                           ======== =========  ======== =========



                                    Six Months ended July 5,
                           ______________________________________  
                                  1997                1998
                           __________________  __________________ 
                                    Per Share           Per Share
                             Shares  Amount      Shares  Amount
                           ________ _________  ________ _________
       Basic EPS             10,783   $  0.64    11,421   $  0.81

       Effect of dilutive
        stock options           302     (0.02)      337     (0.02)
                           ________ _________  ________ _________
       Diluted EPS           11,085  $   0.62    11,758  $   0.79
                           ======== =========  ======== =========
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.03

November 6, 2000

Manish
Gupta
10200 Parkwood Drive, #2
Cupertino, CA 95014

Dear
Manish,

On
behalf of Zamba, I am both extremely pleased and excited to offer you an opportunity to join us as Chief Technology Officer, reporting to the President and Chief Executive Officer.

We
would like to offer you an exempt, full time position, which includes:



This
offer is contingent upon your executing the attached employment agreement before commencing your employment, the successful completion of your reference and background
investigation, and compliance with the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Also, if you are not a U.S. citizen, U.S. permanent resident, nor been granted asylee or refugee status, this
offer is contingent upon your ability to meet Zamba's Immigration policy guidelines and INS approval of your right to reside and work in the United States (i.e., approval of appropriate work visa or
status for Zamba, Minneapolis). Should you qualify, Zamba will pay the reasonable and usual costs to obtain the appropriate nonimmigrant classification.

This
offer will remain valid for seven days from the date of this letter unless we notify you otherwise. You should understand that this offer does not constitute a contract of
employment for any specified period of time but will create an "employment at will" relationship.

Please
sign this letter, indicating acceptance of this offer and your anticipated start date. Return the signed copy in the enclosed envelope and keep a copy for your records. Please
review and complete the enclosed forms. Bring these forms and the appropriate I-9 documentation with you on your first day of work. At orientation we will cover your benefits, review your
forms and answer any questions you may have.

---

Manish, we believe that you will find Zamba a truly exciting and fulfilling place to work. We look forward to your joining us and contributing to our success.

Sincerely,

/s/
Paul Edelhertz

Paul
Edelhertz
Chairman of the Board of Directors

I
accept this offer:

|                 |  |        
|---------------- |  | -------
|/s/ Manish Gupta |  | 11/6/00
|NAME             |  | Date   

Anticipated
Start Date: 11/15/00

ENCL:



---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133112 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133112 

 COA: 264234 

Wayne CC: 05-001502-01

LAMAR EDWARD TATE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk