alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joan Frances M. MALONE, Appellant v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Appellees

No. 16-7115

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: February 21, 2017

Joan Frances M. Malone, Pro Se

BEFORE: Henderson and Brown, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered August 18, 2016, be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaint. See 28 U.S.C, § 1915(e)(2) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time” if the court determines the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted). The district court *9properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as well as for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the allegations in her complaint are “’patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable fon decision,” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
sfy_ex101-05112012.htm




AMENDMENT NO. 7


TO THE


 


SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY


 


2005 STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN


 







 


SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to the authority granted in Section 14 of the Swift Energy Company First Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), hereby amends the Plan, effective as of May 8, 2012, as follows:


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Plan provides for the maximum aggregate number of shares of the Company’s common stock in respect of which Awards may be granted under the 2005 Plan as 6,975,000 shares (“Plan Maximum”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company and the requisite number of the Company’s shareholders have approved the Plan Maximum to be increased by up to an additional 225,000 shares:


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall read as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
Existing Section 5(b) of the Plan shall remain in its entirety except that “6,750,000” be deleted and “up to 6,975,000” be substituted in its place.







 



	
2.  

	
Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full effect.







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan is amended effective as of the day and year first above written.


 



	  	
SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY


	  	
By:

	  /s/ Bruce H. Vincent
	  	  	
Bruce H. Vincent


President
#### Willie James DEAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton JOYNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6204

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Willie James Dean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.-

PER CURIAM:

Willie James Dean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Dean’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dean has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*
1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

# COURT OF APPEALS SE CONDDIS T RICTOFT EXAS

FORT W ORTH NO. 2 - 09 - 14 6- CR J AM E S R YA N G I L E S AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- FR O M THE 3 71 DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY ST

----- ----- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W eh a v ec o n s i d e r e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s“ M o t i o n F o rVo l u n t a ryDi s mi s s a l Of A ppeal By A ppel l antJ am es R yan G i l es. ” Th e m ot i on com pl i es w i t h r ul e 42 . 2( a) oft he r ul esofap pel l at e p r oce dur e. Tex . R. A pp. P. 42.2(a) . N o de ci si on of t hi s cou rthavi ng been del i ver ed bef or e w e r ec ei ved t hi s m ot i on, w e g r antt he m o ti o n a n d d i s m i s sth ea p p e a l . See i d. ; T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 3 .2 (f).

P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Aug us t20, 2009
Jonathan Lee DOUGLAS v. STATE

CR-16-0098

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,572
<INVENTORY>                                     46,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,460
<PP&E>                                          42,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,019
<BONDS>                                        163,821
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     49,505
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,657)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,696
<SALES>                                         85,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,939
<CGS>                                           57,876
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,251)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,887
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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:
March 17, 2008
    
    /s/ Robert I. Chen

Robert I. ChenPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chairman of the Board
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
454 A.2d 156

#### Commonwealth v. Smith, Appellant.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied April 15, 1983.

Argued September *59621, 1981.

John J. O’Brien, for appellant; Joseph J. Hylan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before BROSKY, McEWEN and BECK, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (AS RESTATED) AS AT AND FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,763
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,127
<PP&E>                                         132,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,687
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,445
<SALES>                                        140,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,529
<CGS>                                          121,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (223)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   777
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (218)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,955
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,630
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,630
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Curtis J. Parker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                         |  |     |  |                                                     
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 21, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Curtis J. Parker                                
|                         |  |     |  | Curtis J. Parker                                    
|                         |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



24
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicolas SEBASTIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10615 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 3, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicolas Sebastian, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nicholas Sebastian has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011), as well as a supplemental brief. Sebastian has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs-and the relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
SCHEDULES A, B, AND C (AS AMENDED) TO CA, INC.



 Exhibit 10.54 
 CA, Inc. Change in Control Severance Policy 
 (Amended and Restated Effective
September 10, 2008) 
 (Schedules as of May 8, 2012) 

Schedule A 
 (2.99 Multiple) 
 Chief Executive Officer (William E. McCracken) 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Richard Beckert)* 
 Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Worldwide Sales and Services (George J. Fischer) 

Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Enterprise Solutions and Technology Group (Peter Griffiths)* 

[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time] 
 Schedule B 
 (2.00 Multiple) 

Executive Vice President, Risk, and Chief Administrative Officer (Phillip J. Harrington) 
 Executive Vice President and General Counsel (Amy Fliegelman Olli) 
 Executive Vice President and
Group Executive, Mainframe and Customer Success Group (Adam Elster)* 
 [Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time] 

Schedule C 
 (1.00 Multiple) 
 Executive Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Development (Jacob Lamm)

 [Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time] 
  

	*	Denotes participants not eligible for the excise tax-gross-up pursuant to section 4(g) of the Policy.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

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

                                            Quarter  Ended
                                                  April  5,
                                            ------------------
                                               1998      1999
                                            ---------  -------

<S>                                           <C>      <C>
BASIC
Weighted average common shares
outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11,392   11,692
                                            =========  =======
Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 4,277  $ 5,068
                                            =========  =======
Net income per common share. . . . . . . . .  $  0.38  $  0.43
                                            =========  =======
DILUTED
Weighted average common shares
outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11,392   11,692

Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding
during the period. . . . . . . . . . . . . .      319      166

Total common and common equivalent          ---------  -------
shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11,711   11,858
                                            =========  =======
Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 4,277  $ 5,068
                                            =========  =======
Net income per common share. . . . . . . . .  $  0.37  $  0.43
                                            =========  =======
</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS22-02]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in open session for a special meeting:

*Location:*                     This will be a virtual meeting via Zoom. Please visit the agency's homepage (                    *www.asc.gov*) and access the provided registration link in the What's New box. You MUST register in advance to attend this Meeting.                

*Date:*                     February 23, 2022.                

*Time:*                     10:00 a.m. ET.                

*Status:*                     Open.                

## Action and Discussion Items

Amendment to FY22 ASC Budget

7-Hour National USPAP Update Course

*How to Attend and Observe an ASC Meeting:*                     Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage (                    *www.asc.gov*) and access the provided registration link in the What's New box. The meeting space is intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device                           ( print page 8841)                        designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC Meetings.                

James R. Park,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2022-03372 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
Steven C. HEISER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3370

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### NOAESE (Atofau), Plaintiff v. LEALA and LEOSO, Defendants

No. 10-1907

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Alesai”]

August 31, 1907

Present: E. W. GURR, *Senior Member of Court;*and MAUGA, *Associate Member*

JUDGMENT

The court having taken the dispute between the parties in this case into consideration considers that Noaese is entitled to the land surveyed by him through his father who obtained .the land from Samaga. The land outside of the survey of Noaese which was in dispute between the parties is the property of Atofau.

> The costs in this case are to be paid as follows:

> Leoso and Léala........................................ $15.00

> Atofau ...................................................... 12.50

> Noaese ...................................................... 12.50

> $40.00

The costs of Noaese are made $12.50 to cover his title, which he will obtain to the land. He prevails in this case as to his own claim, but on Atofau’s side, whom he represented, he does not prevail, and he, representing Atofau will be called upon to see that the costs are paid.

The heavier portion of the costs are placed on Leoso and Léala. I will explain to Leoso why this is: In calculating *161the costs of court, it is necessary sometimes to take into consideration the amount of time taken up by the several parties. Now, it happens, sometimes, .that one party will call witnesses who will go into a lot of matter which is quite irrelevant to the issue. If these parties have taken up the time of the court uselessly, notwithstanding the final issue of the contest, they must expect to pay. Leoso took up a greater portion of the time occupied in this hearing in narrating a story which finally had no real bearing on the title to the land. It would be very interesting to hear it in sitting around a house during the evening just after dinner, but such stories as .that might just as well be kept out of court, unless they are of some use.

Let a decree issue, vesting the title in Noaese to the lands described in the foregoing judgment, and to Atofau to the lands awarded to him in the foregoing judgment, and the Registrar of Titles is ordered to issue a certificate to each of the above in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing judgment.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shannon BUCK, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10349 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 26, 2017

*244James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Shannon Buck, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Shannon Buck has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Buck has filed a response and moved for leave to file a supplemental response. That motion is GRANTED. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Buck’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we thus decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Buck’s response and supplemental response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities •herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Buck’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.