alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Shannon Derrell WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe, Petitioner.

No. 17-1918

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

Shannon Derrell Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shannon Derrell Williams has filed a petition for a writ of audita querela, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012), seeking to challenge his multiple life sentences. Williams concedes, however, that he has been denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). A writ of audita querela is not available to a petitioner when other avenues of relief are available, such as a motion to vacate under § 2255. *See United States v. Torres,*282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002); *United States v. Johnson,*962 F.2d 579, 582 (7th Cir. 1992) (explaining that audita querela may not be invoked by a defendant challenging the legality of his sentence who could otherwise raise that challenge under § 2255). The fact that Williams cannot proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains this court’s authorization to file a successive motion does not alter this conclusion. *See United States v. Valdez-Pacheco,*237 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A prisoner may not circumvent valid congressional limitations on collateral attacks by asserting that those very limitations create a gap in the postconviction remedies that must be filled by the common law writs.”).

Accordingly, although we grant Williams’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of audita querela. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
AZRAN MIAMI 2 LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1130

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6052 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6052

  To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to improve 
        provisions relating to dyslexia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2023

 Mrs. Houchin (for herself, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Bucshon, 
 Mr. Burlison, and Mr. Mrvan) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to improve 
        provisions relating to dyslexia, 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 ``21st Century Dyslexia Act''.

SEC. 2. DYSLEXIA.

    (a) Definitions.--Section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``or specific learning 
        disabilities'' and inserting ``specific learning disabilities, 
        or dyslexia'';
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) Dyslexia.--The term `dyslexia' means an unexpected 
        difficulty in reading for an individual who has the 
        intelligence to be a much better reader, most commonly caused 
        by a difficulty in the phonological processing (the 
        appreciation of the individual sounds of spoken language), 
        which affects the ability of an individual to speak, read, and 
        spell.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (30)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``dyslexia,''; 
                and
                    (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or of 
                environmental'' and all that follows and inserting ``or 
                dyslexia''.
    (b) Provision of Accommodations and Services.--The Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act is amended by inserting after section 608 
(20 U.S.C. 1407) the following:

``SEC. 608A. PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES.

    ``In determining eligibility for, or providing, an accommodation or 
service under this title, a local educational agency or other agency 
shall provide equal access, to the accommodation or service, to all 
eligible children, including eligible children who are--
            ``(1) children from low-income families;
            ``(2) children from families with low socioeconomic status; 
        and
            ``(3) children who are limited English proficient.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.15


 


SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


The following summarizes
the current compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee directors as of January 1, 2019. This document
is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights
to any non-employee director. Compensation of the non-employee directors may be adjusted from time to time.


 


Retainer


 


Non-employee directors
each receive an annual retainer fee of $60,000. The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $20,000, the
Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $10,000 and the Chairman of each of the Corporate Governance/Nominating
Committee and Diversity Committee receives an annual retainer of $6,000. A director that chairs more than one committee receives
a retainer with respect to each Committee he chairs. All of the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.


 


Meeting Fees


 


Per meeting fees for non-employee directors
are as follows:


 


		–	For meetings of the Board of Directors, $2,500.



 


		–	For meetings of the Compensation Committee, $2,000.



 


		–	For meetings of the Nominating and Governance Committee, $1,500.



 


		–	For meetings of the Diversity Committee, $1,500.



 


		–	For meetings of the Audit Committee either in person or over the telephone, $2,500.



 


		–	In addition, the Chairman receives an additional $2,500 for preparing to conduct each quarterly
meeting.



 


Equity Compensation


 


Under the terms of
the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, directors are eligible to receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based
compensation awards. However, the Company does not make any such awards to non-employee directors under its current compensation
practices.


 


All non-employee
directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all services as a director, including committee participation or special
assignments.
Exhibit 10.11.1



		

			Exhibit 10.11.1

		


		

			 

		




		
			SCHEDULE OF CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENTS
		

		
			In accordance with Instruction 2 to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, Aqua America, Inc. (the “Company”) has omitted filing Change in Control Agreements by and between the Company and the following executive officers because the agreements are substantially identical in all material respects to the form of Change in Control Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2015:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			Daniel J. Schuller




			
	
			
				 2.
			

			
	
			
			Christopher P. Luning




			
	
			
				 3.
			

			
	
			
			Richard S. Fox




			
	
			
				 4.
			

			
	
			
			Matthew R. Rhodes




		
			﻿
#### Demetrius Jarod SMALLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan WILSON; Scarlett Wilson; Tripp Lawton; Linda Lombard; J. Al Canon, Jr.; D. Peters; W. Dixon; Richard M. Gergel; David Holton; David Whitten Wolf, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-6683

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 28, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Demetrius Jarod Smalls, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*804PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Jarod Smalls appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Smalls’ action for failure to state a claim and assessing a strike under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smalls v. Wilson, No. 2:15-cv-04014-MBS (D.S.C. May 11, 2016). We deny Smalls’ motions for due process of law, for relief under Fed. R. App. P. 27, and for release pending 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Richard MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard J. WALSH, III, Esq., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-2138

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 19, 2016

Decided: November 23, 2016

*840Richard Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Martin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). We review a district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, applying the same standards employed when reviewing a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Martin challenges the district court’s conclusion that his claims were untimely. Martin’s claims, whether brought under state law or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), were subject to, at longest, a three-year statute of limitations. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 (2013) (general civil statute of limitations); Md. Code Ann., Cts. *&*Jud. Proc. § 5-105 (2013) (actions for assault and defamation); Owens v. Balt. City State’s Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379, 388 (4th Cir. 2014) (§ 1983 claims), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1893, 191 L.Ed.2d 762 (2015). While Martin’s malicious prosecution claim has not yet accrued, this claim is barred by his inability to meet the favorable termination requirement. See Heron v. Strader, 361 Md. 258, 761 A.2d 56, 59 (2000). Contrary to Martin’s assertions, the facts alleged in the complaint demonstrate that his remaining claims accrued, at the latest, by the time he was released from prison, and the limitations period was not subject to tolling. See A Soc’y Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 2011) (accrual under § 1983); Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Dhanda, 426 Md. 185, 43 A.3d 1029, 1034-35, 1039-41 (2012) (discussing accrual and tolling under state law); see also Nat’l Advert. Co. v. Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1166-67 (4th Cir. 1991) (describing continuing violations doctrine). Finally, because Martin’s claims were properly dismissed, the district court committed no error in denying as moot Martin’s request to file electronically.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
EX PARTE Bobby Gene MILES

1160176 (CR-15-1244)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
#### Oscar Roberto VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73400

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Melissa Katherine Lott, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Roberto Valencia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.G, § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Valencia’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where he filed it over three years after the final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to establish materially changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 12

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in Thousands)

                                                              Six Months Ended
                                                                  June 30,
                                                            --------------------
                                                              2000        1999
                                                            --------    --------
Income before income taxes                                  $ 86,079    $172,429
Add fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                           393,561     270,336
  One-third rentals                                            3,501       2,468
                                                            --------    --------
    Total fixed charges                                      397,062     272,804
                                                            --------    --------
Income as adjusted                                          $483,141    $445,233
                                                            --------    --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges                                1.22        1.63
                                                            ========    ========

Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis                $  3,163    $  3,163
Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends           $400,225    $275,967
                                                            --------    --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges and preferred
  stock dividends                                               1.21        1.61
                                                            ========    ========
Raymon Leroy MYERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5081

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and J.L. "Ray" LeGrande, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
#### John L. WILLIAMS-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Greg COX, N.D.O.C. Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15271

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

John L. Williams-El, Pro Se

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John L. Williams-El, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his validation as a gang member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We vacate and remand.

Dismissal without leave to amend was premature because it is not “absolutely clear” that the deficiencies in Williams-El’s complaint could not be cured by amendment. *Weilburg,*488 F.3d at 1205; *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (standard of review); *see also Bruce v. Ylst,*351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003) (relevant question for gang validation due process claim is “whether there was ‘some evidence’ to support [the prisoner’s] validation”).

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district to give Williams-El an opportunity to amend his complaint.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.15
SUMMARY of 2018 BONUS PLAN
The 2018 Bonus Plan (the “2018 Bonus Plan”) of ForeScout Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) provides for cash bonuses payable semiannually based on the achievement of company performance goals and individual performance goals established by the Company’s board of directors and compensation committee for fiscal year 2018. The company performance goals and individual performance goals are measured over two, semiannual performance periods during 2018. For the fiscal year 2018 performance period, with bonuses payable semiannually, a progress payment may become payable at the end of the first half of fiscal 2018, based on specified levels of achievement of the performance goals for such semiannual period. Any such bonus amount for the first half-portion of the year is capped at 100% of the participant’s target bonus opportunity for such half-year. If the participant exceeds his or her performance goals for the first semiannual performance period, he or she will not receive more than 100% of his or her bonus target for the first semiannual performance period. Rather, if a participant exceeds his or her performance goals for the first semiannual performance period, such portion greater than 100% will be taken into account in determining whether the participant’s performance goals were met in the second semiannual performance period. 
For the bonuses paid to employees, other than the CEO and senior vice presidents, the bonus pool will be funded for the performance period when the Company achieves a minimum of 80% for each of revenue, total expense, and balanced scorecard related performance goals. For the bonuses paid to the CEO and senior vice presidents, the bonus pool will be funded for the performance period when the Company achieves a minimum of 85% for each of revenue, total expense, and balanced scorecard related company performance goals. Achievement of all three corporate goals at 100% will fund the bonus pool at the target level. 
Following the end of fiscal year 2018, the Company’s board of directors (or its authorized committee) reviews achievements against each annual performance metric and determines the bonus pool funding based on the Company’s achievements against the performance metrics. The semiannual bonus payments for each of the Company’s named executive officers were calculated based on these determinations and, for any participant that was employed for part of fiscal year 2018, pro-rated based on the time of employment with the Company during fiscal year 2018. The 2018 Bonus Plan requires continued employment through the bonus payment date in order to receive a bonus for the applicable performance period.
Exhibit
23.1







Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 The Board
of Directors
 Harman
International Industries, Incorporated:
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.
33-28973, 33-60236, 33-59605, 333-02197, 333-28793, 333-32673, 333-103487 and
333-103488 on Form S-8 of Harman International Industries, Incorporated of our
reports dated August 29, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
of Harman International Industries, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of June 30,
2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash
flows, and shareholders equity and comprehensive income, and the related
financial statement schedule, for each of the years in the three-year period
ended June 30, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of June 30, 2008, which reports appear in the June 30, 2008 annual
report on Form 10-K of Harman International Industries,
Incorporated.
  As
discussed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company
adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, effective July 1,
2007.
 
  (signed)
KPMG LLP
 
  McLean,
Virginia
 August
29, 2008
Kimberly GOODMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sean GOODMAN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5028

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 06, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00002

- CV
South Texas Crane Service, Inc., Sandra Joyce Vaught, Jerry Young, Thomas Randall Young, TRY Equipment Rentals LLC, and Young Heavy Haul, Inc. v. Commercial Credit Group Inc.
On Appeal from the 267th Di strict Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22

- 07

- 88794

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance wit h its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 16, 2023