alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence RICHARDSON, a/k/a Squeaky, a/k/a L-Don, a/k/a Don, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6037

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: August 9, 2017

*209Terrence Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Antonio J. Reynolds, Traci L. Robinson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Henry Brandis Marsh, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Richardson 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*
Jihad Abdur RAUF v. STATE

CR-16-0535

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017

Reh. denied.
DJI Phantom 3 Professional Pre-Flight Inspection and 

Safe Operating Standards

Viewz From Above “LLC”

John Mynster, Owner/Member

Drafted 070115
Aircraft Pre-Flight Procedures

1. Conduct visual inspection of Phantom 3 Professional aircraft for 

broken or missing aircraft parts to include: airframe, propellers, 

aircraft indicator lights, motors, landing gear, camera and camera 

gimbal, visual positioning system and antennas.

2. Inspect aircraft flight batteries for obvious cracks and broken parts. 

3. Ensure aircraft batteries are fully charged.

4. Calibrate Phantom 3 Professional compass

5. Conduct visual inspection of Phantom 3 flight controller for broken or 

missing pieces.

6. Ensure controller and visual monitoring device batteries are fully 

charged.

7. Ensure the visual monitor is positioned securely on the flight 

controller.

8. Remove Gimbal Clamp for aircraft gimbal.

9. Toggle the flight mode switch on remote controller to (P Mode)

10. Turn “on” the remote controller by pressing the power button for 2 

seconds.

11. Insert flight battery into the Phantom 3 Professional and turn on by 

pressing the power button for 2 seconds. 

12. Ensure the LED on your controller is green indicating it’s ready to be 

used.

13. Turn on the visual monitoring device and the DJI App. In the DJI 

App, tap the camera icon and complete the on-screen checklist.
Establish Safe Flight Operation Standards

1. Ensure written permission is obtained by property owners prior to flite 

operations.

2. Conduct a pre-mission brief with visual observer and establish UAS 

flight plan and objectives.

3. Contact property owner who has authorized UAS flight operation on 

their property. Contact adjacent property owners and notify them of 

impeding UAS flight operations.

3. Set out orange traffic cones on both sides of the subject property.

4. Set out flight operations flag.

5. Conduct UAS flight operations during daylight hours, flying at 400 feet 

AGL or below, and observe all property and privacy rights.

6. Visual Safety Observer will monitor airspace for other aircraft and 

surrounding area for potential hazards. 

7. Visual Safety Observer has the right to terminate flight if safety is 

jeopardized.

8. Power down all equipment and remove flight battery from UAS. 

9. After flight operations are completed, notify property owners, secure 

traffic cones and flight operations flag.
EX-10.36





 EXHIBIT 10.36 

FOURTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

WESBANCO, INC. KSOP 
 (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 2014) 
 WHEREAS, WesBanco, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the WesBanco, Inc. KSOP, as amended and restated
effective January 1, 2014 (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, Section 12.6 of the Plan reserves to the Company the right to
amend the Plan at any time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company has decided to amend the Plan to address service credit and eligibility with respect
to an acquired group of employees; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 

	 	1.	 Effective April 1, 2018, new Article 22 is added immediately after Article 21, to read as follows:



 Article 22 

Service Credit for Former First Sentry Bank Employees 

Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, an individual who was formerly employed by First Sentry Bank
(“FSB”) and who becomes an Employee of the Employer on April 5, 2018, as a result of the merger of FSB with and into the Company (“Former FSB Employee”), shall receive credit for his prior service with FSB such that his date
of employment with FSB shall be treated as his Date of Employment with the Employer for eligibility and vesting purposes under this Plan. For purposes of Article 3, if such Former FSB Employee would have become a Participant in this Plan on or
before April 5, 2018, based on his Date of Employment as modified in accordance with the preceding sentence, such Former FSB Employee shall become a Participant on April 5, 2018. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Amendment of the Plan is, by the authority of the Board of Directors of the Company, executed on behalf of the
Company this 21st day of March, 2018. 
  

			
	WesBanco, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Todd F. Clossin

		 	Todd F. Clossin
President & CEO


  

	
	ATTEST:
	
	 /s/ Linda M. Woodfin

	 Secretary



  
 -1-
Moises HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 3D17-1364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

Law Office of Leslie Holland, and Leslie Holland, for petitioner.

Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and William X. Candela, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Moises Hernandez, brought this case as an appeal from the circuit court appellate division's per curiam affirmance of the Miami-Dade County Mayor's decision dismissing Petitioner from his employment with the County based on the findings and recommendations of a hearing officer following a civil service hearing conducted pursuant to Section 2-47 of the Miami-Dade County Code. We treat the appeal as a petition for second-tier certiorari review. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B).

As such, we are limited to a determination of whether Petitioner has demonstrated a violation of a clearly established legal principle that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. *See**Miami-Dade Cty. v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc.*, 863 So.2d 195, 199 (Fla. 2003). In considering the evidence in the record, we find he has not and, therefore, deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                       RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          WATERMARC FOOD MANAGEMENT CO.

     Pursuant to the provisions of Article 4.04 of the Texas Business
Corporation Act, Watermarc Food Management Co., the undersigned corporation (the
"Corporation") adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its Restated
Articles of Incorporation:

                                   ARTICLE ONE
                                    AMENDMENT

     The following amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation of the
Corporation was adopted by the Shareholders of the Corporation on January 23,
1998, in order to provide for the issuance of additional shares of common stock.

     Article Four, Section 1 of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of the
Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                                  ARTICLE FOUR
                  CAPITALIZATION, PREEMPTIVE RIGHTS AND VOTING

     Section 1. Authorized Shares. The Corporation shall have authority to issue
two classes of shares to be designated respectively "Common Stock" and
"Preferred Stock". The total number of shares which the Corporation is
authorized to issue is ONE HUNDRED FIVE MILLION (105,000,000) shares of which
ONE HUNDRED MILLION (100,000,000) shall be Common Stock and FIVE MILLION
(5,000,000) shall be Preferred Stock. Each share of Common Stock shall have a
par value of FIVE CENTS ($.05), and each share of Preferred Stock shall have a
par value of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00).

                                   ARTICLE TWO
                               OUTSTANDING SHARES

     The number of shares of the Corporation outstanding at the time of such
adoption was 14,163,230 shares of Common Stock, $.05 par value per share; and
the number of shares of Common Stock entitled to vote thereon was 14,163,230.

                                  ARTICLE THREE
                                      VOTE

     The number of shares voted for and against such amendment was as follows:

                                For      Against
                                ---      -------
     Authorized Shares       8,531,423   559,267

     EXECUTED this 30th day of January, 1998.

                                                  WATERMARC FOOD MANAGEMENT CO.


                                                  By:/s/ Ghulam M. Bombaywala
                                                         Ghulum M. Bombaywala,
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883842
<NAME> M-WAVE INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,504,432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,062,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    563,697
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,761,543
<PP&E>                                      12,483,740
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,345,524)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,888,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,735,011
<BONDS>                                      1,813,706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,698
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,920,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,888,944
<SALES>                                      5,579,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        4,803,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,046,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (80,724)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (350,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (134,268)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (216,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (216,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
#### Gene Everette WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. P. MOONEY, Ch’ville PD; S. A. Cason, Det.; Woodzell, Det.; Lezelle Duggar, a/k/a Llezelle Dugger, Clerk; Timothy Longo, Chville PD Chief, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7529

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 4, 2017

Decided: May 17, 2017

Gene Everette Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Hustis Milnor, TAYLOR ZUNKA MILNOR & CARTER LTD, Charlottesville, Virginia; John Chadwick Johnson, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*211Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gene Everette Washington appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim and denying his subsequent motions to reopen and to continue. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Washington v. Mooney,*No. 7:15-cv-00514-JLK-RSB, 2016 WL 4775741 (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2016; Oct. 20, 2016). We further deny Washington’s motion to suppress seized evidence. 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*
Date: July 29 , 20 1 5 To: Docket , EPA - HQ - OAR- 201 4 - 0738 From: Andrew Bouchard Subject: Meeting Record for July 29 , 2015, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and ExxonMobil Chemical Company On July 29 , 2015 , representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) participated in a meeting with ExxonMobil Chemical Company . The purpose of the meeting was to have a technical discuss ion with ExxonMobil about the MPGF testing information that w as submitted to the docket during the comment period on the initial MPGF AMEL notice . See **Attachment 1** for the names and affiliations of the meeting participants .**Attachment 1 Participants in**  **July 29 , 2015**  **EPA/ ExxonMobil**  **Meeting** ExxonMobil Chemical Company Representatives Ben jamin Hurst Gary Robbins Roger Martell a (on the phone) U.S. EPA Representatives Andrew Bouchard Brenda Shine Penny L assiter
D.B.K. v. J.W.B.

2160501

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit



        
        



Ex 10-5-3


TEGNA INC.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


Restatement dated February 1, 2003, as amended
Rules for Pre-2005 Deferrals


Amendment No. 4


TEGNA Inc. hereby amends the TEGNA Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, Rules for Pre-2005 Deferrals, restatement dated February 1, 2003, as amended (the “Plan”), effective December 1, 2018, as follows:


1.Section 2.6(b) is amended by deleting the last four sentences of such Section and replacing them with the following: 
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, effective December 1, 2018, the TEGNA Inc. and Cars.com Inc. stock funds shall be eliminated as investment options under the Plan. 
2.Section 2.8 is amended by deleting the last four sentences of such Section.
3.Section 2.9(h) is amended by deleting the last two sentences of such Section. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TEGNA Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of November 16, 2018.


                	
			
	 
	 
	TEGNA Inc.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Jeffrey Newman

	 
	Name:
	Jeffrey Newman

	 
	Title:
	Senior Vice President / Human Resources
James Y. EVANS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. ADVANCE SOUNDS AND PERFORMANCE, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1949

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 16, 2017

Following review of petitioner's response, it is ordered that respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and this petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed.

Petitioner's motion for attorney's fees and motion for attorney's fees as a sanction are hereby denied.

Within ten (10) days from the date of this order, petitioner is ordered to show cause why he should not be responsible for appellate attorneys fees pursuant to Rule 9.410 for filing a frivolous appeal designed soley to prolong resolution of the case and to harass.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and SALTER, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRIS GRINDLING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DEREK KAAUKAI, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-16254

D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00206-JAO-KJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Chris Grindling appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a 

dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-16254

639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Grindling’s 

action because Grindling failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 

or pay the filing fee by the deadline set by the district court, and the district court 

warned him that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 640, 642-43 

(discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to 

comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent 

“a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of 

judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grindling’s 

motions for reconsideration because Grindling failed to establish any basis for 

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for 

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Leon BRIGHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0614

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

          Exhibit 11 - Statement Re: Computation of per share earnings

                                                                        (UNAUDITED)
                                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                          MARCH 31,
                                                                     -------------------
                                                                       1997      1996
                                                                     --------   --------
                                                                    (Amounts in thousands,
                                                                   except per share amounts)
<S>                                                                 <C>         <C>
Primary:

  Average shares outstanding                                           8,436     8,220

  Net effect of the assumed exercise of stock options, based on
    the treasury stock method using average market price                 202       283
                                                                      ------    ------
                                                                       8,638     8,503
                                                                      ======    ======
Net income                                                            $2,291    $1,745
                                                                      ======    ======
Income per common share                                               $ 0.27    $ 0.21
                                                                      ======    ======
Fully Diluted:

  Average shares outstanding                                           8,436     8,220

  Net effect of the assumed exercise of stock options, based on
    the treasury stock method using average market price or period       206       303
    ending market price, whichever is higher
                                                                      ------    ------
                                                                       8,642     8,523
                                                                      ======    ======
Net income                                                            $2,291    $1,745
                                                                      ======    ======
Income per common share                                               $ 0.27    $ 0.20
                                                                      ======    ======
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-
Q OF XIRCOM, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          61,227
<SECURITIES>                                   289,034
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,849
<INVENTORY>                                     21,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               441,872
<PP&E>                                          92,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 509,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,278
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     435,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   509,703
<SALES>                                        235,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,361
<CGS>                                          128,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,319
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,563
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,563
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69


</TABLE>