alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R.K., L.K., Parents of, A.K., A Minor, Petitioners-Appellants v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee

2016-1609

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 9, 2016

Gilbert Gaynor, Law Office of Gilbert Gaynor, New York, NY, argued for petitioners-appellants. Also represented by John Francis McHugh, Law Office of John McHugh, New York, NY.

*793Heather Lynn Pearlman, Vaccine/Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Rupa Bhattacharyya, Catharine E. Reeves, Voris E. Johnson, Jr.

(Pi’ost, Chief Judge, Schall and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36. .
Cory Leon GOFF, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Miranda Faye GOFF, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4173

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to comply with this court's order of April 12, 2018, requiring the filing of an initial brief.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00075

- CR

J EFFERY L EE M ANNS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 396th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1213452D )

July 8, 2021

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(nf p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando DEWITT, a/k/a Orlando Williamson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4072

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 18, 2017

Decided: September 27, 2017

*253Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Orlando Dewitt appeals the 41-month sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Because Dewitt does not argue that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable, we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Louthian,*756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [ (2012) ] factors.” *Id.*

Dewitt contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, arguing that a lower sentence was warranted because he had a difficult upbringing, committed his initial sex offense as a minor, and has gone an extensive amount of time without committing another sex offense. We conclude that these contentions fail to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded Dewitt’s within-Guidelines sentence. Although Dewitt was not accused of another sex offense, the district court was justifiably concerned about his repeated failure to register as a sex offender. And the district court recognized Dewitt’s difficult upbringing, but emphasized that this did not excuse his failure to register as a sex offender. The district court’s explanation indicates that it considered Dewitt’s arguments, but found them unpersuasive when considered against other §'3553 factors. We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion.

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*
Jamaal Ali BILAL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GEO-CCS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1422

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of NCI Building Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and3
    
    The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NCI Building
Systems, Inc.
  /s/ Mark E. JohnsonMark E. JohnsonExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

120) ll-E-80 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07AM Sheet 120 of 264 

i 

i 

i 

• 
SUM BYWINOINt 

P.2 

; 5-23-97 ;11=58AM ; RYNONE- 19199410234;# 2/ 2 

VJVV V WV«I 

A-94-52 

Front 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Melanie Proctor, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

October 30,1996 

Mr. James Manning, Plant F^ginrer 

Rynone Manu&cruring Corporation 

Telephone Number: (717) 888-5272 

Fax Number: (717) 888-1175 

Contact Summary: Tft_l M(H£& CoUSt'STs. OF./h 3frgR£.L W9+ JMi.Maimmgwascoata^togal^admuonalinfoimatiM @e.Wrro 

mixers mat were reported in a/993 industry survey: Mr. Manning explained that Rynone has 4 SLu^ZC 

completely enclosed Reipecimfifing machines. All materials (resin, filler, and catalyst) are «* "

 ep> 

harf-pipedimo the mixer/The barrel of the miwiwl^approxmiatcly 4 quarts of resm mat ^ 1P&&& 

ya^WBttng n rnmplrfrrl, thr mold is Moved m&w tha uuw auJ Omuau mauk ia^speased /* » *B 

ttou^n^aeetlHl&Aajaoldr There are no vents in the miwatm the system U completely MM* 

closed,except for meirclease of displaced air during rtw inaterial loading. Tnc displaced air is fi^/itf 

released through theftueet that allows the mixer to be emptied. #/_£ as 

When asked about the cost of a Respects mixer. Mr. Marming pointed out that the price 77«_ 

ror a new Respects mixer ranges from $30,000 to $90,000. &9fifi£L . 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE 
P.3 

SENT BY:RYNONE ; 5-23-97 ;11:58AM ; RYNONE- 19199410234;# 1/ 2 

¥N(DM1 

MANUFACTURING CORP. 

RYNONE 

FAX COVER SHEET 

FAX: 717-888-1175 

DATE: s /*?/ 17. 

FROM: J MALlJU/^ 

COMPANY: 

COMPANY FAX: ?/«7 VU-Ol3*f 

REMARKS: 

7 ^ 5 7y/>«t OA Mtx&£* 

(*, 4 ** CptsT'As U 0O*> ' MlX&&~- . 

"INCLUDING COVER SHEET 

P.O. BOX 128. N. THOMAS AVE.. SAYRE, PA 18840 • (717)888-5272 

*2_
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Wayne AIKEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7192

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

Larry Wayne Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Wayne Aiken 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 certifícate 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 sat*186isfies 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 Aiken has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Aiken’s motion for 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*
Willie Ray LEWIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0587

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's February 16, 2018, fee order.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | July 30, 2010 | By:    | /s/Darron R. Ming                                              |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |          |   | Darron R. Ming                                                 |   |
|   |          |   | Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |          |   |                                                           |   |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Maurice BURKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6540

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Stephen Maurice Burks, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Maurice Burks seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Burks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral *262argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
K.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2158

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 5, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal is transferred to the 10th Judicial Circuit Court for Polk County for consideration as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See In re E.H., 609 So. 2d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 1992).

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Larodis Vintrell WILSON v. STATE

CR-16-0315

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Damichael COOK

NO. 2018-KK-0753

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J, would grant the writ to order an in camera inspection.

CRICHTON, J., would grant the writ to order an in camera inspection.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Darell TALLIE, a.k.a. Pokie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15744 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/05/2016

Sandra J. Stewart, George L. Beck, Jr., Brandon K Essig, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Anthony Darell Tallie, FCI Marianna-Inmate Legal Mail, Marianna, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tilden Haywood, appointed counsel for Anthony Tallie in this appeal from the denial of Tallie’s construed motion for a sentence reduction under Fed. R. Crim. P. *75435(b), has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the denial of Tallie’s motion is AFFIRMED.
A.T.E. v. R.N. and K.N.

2160602

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Fode Moustapha CAMARA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2008

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anna Juarez, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fode Moustapha Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing 'his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Camara’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that *246the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see •*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We see no error in the Board’s finding that the adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. We also conclude that the Board did not err by denying Camara’s motion for clarification or by permitting the IJ to accept additional evidence on remand and to reassess the adverse credibility finding. Additionally, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of relief under the CAT. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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*
Kenneth STARNES, Appellant, v. GULF COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1752

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Kevin MCCULLOCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the SEIU AFFILIATES OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN; the SEIU Affiliates Officers and Employees Pension Plan, Defendants-Appel-lees.

16-1374

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 10, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: ALISSA PYRICH (with Richard S. Meisner on the brief), Jardim Meisner & Susser P.C., Florham Park, NJ.

FOR APPELLEE: LAUREN P. MCDERMOTT, Mooney Green Saindon Murphy & Welch P.C., Washington, DC.

PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges, LEWIS A. KAPLAN,* District Judge,

*

 Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*69SUMMARY ORDER

Kevin McCulloch appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gardephe, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of the SEIU Affiliates Officers and Employees Pension Plan (“the Plan”) and its Board of Directors, on the ground that McCulloch, failed to exhaust the Plan’s internal administrative procedures before filing suit. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The general rule is that exhaustion is required for ERISA claims. See Kennedy v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 989 F.2d 588, 594 (2d Cir. 1993); Leonelli v. Pennwalt Corp., 887 F.2d 1195, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989). However, we have not decided whether an exception applies when a plaintiff brings a claim premised on statutory violations and that does not require interpretation of the plan’s terms. Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir. 2005) (“This circuit has not addressed the specific question whether exhaustion is required for statutory claims.... ’’). McCulloch asserts that his claim is statutory and does not require exhaustion.

His claim is not statutory. To determine whether McCulloch had the right he asserts, the district court would have needed to construe specific terms of the Plan. Because his claim is not statutory, McCul-loch was required to exhaust internal administrative remedies.

Accordingly we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FIRST
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of September 25, 2018 (the “Effective
Date”) by and between Thomas M. Grbelja, an individual (the “Employee”)
and Nestbuilder.com Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) for the purpose of memorializing an oral amendment
to that certain Employment Agreement dated August 17, 2018, by and between the Company and the Employee (the “Employment
Agreement”), which oral amendment was entered into on or about August 28, 2018. All capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. In consideration of the continued employment
of Employee by the Company, the agreements and covenants herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree to memorialize
the oral amendment to the Employment Agreement by executing this Amendment, and the parties hereto hereby enter into this Amendment,
so as to agree with each other as follows:


 


1.
Amendment to Section 5 of Exhibit A. Section 5 of Exhibit A of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
and the following substituted therefor:


 


“Section
5. Remuneration


 


(a)
Terms and conditions will include a base salary of $24,000 per year.”


 


2.
Amendment to Section 6 of Exhibit A. Section 6 of Exhibit A of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
and the following substituted therefor:


 


“Section
6. Prior to June 30, 2019, the Company shall adopt an employee stock option plan or similar plan for compensating, incentivizing,
retaining and attracting employees (the “Plan”). The Executive shall be entitled to receive equity securities
pursuant to the Plan from time to time in the discretion of the board of directors of the Company.”


 


3.
Effect on Employment Agreement. Expect as amended or modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms, and is hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties hereto.


 


4.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which shall for all purposes be deemed
an original, and all of such counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement. Executed
counterparts may be delivered via facsimile or other means of electronic transmission.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first set forth above.


 


	“Employee”	 	“Company”
	 	 	 
	 	 	Nestbuilder.com
    Corp.,
	 	 	a
    Nevada corporation
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Thomas
    M. Grbelja, an individual	 	By:	Alex
    Aliksanyan
	 	 	Its:	Chief
    Executive Officer