alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Michael BURNS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6757

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Aaron M. Burns, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Michael Burns seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motions for a change of venue. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judg*256ment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on November 10 and November 21, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 1, 2017.* Because Burns failed to file a timely notice of appeal, or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEREMY LUJAN AIKEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00092-1) Submitted: October 19, 2007 Decided: November 16, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy Lujan Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* We previously remanded to the district court for that court to determine if excusable neglect existed to warrant extension of the appeal period. While the court did not specifically state whether Aiken had shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting extension of the ten-day appeal period, we conclude from its order that it intended its processing of Aiken’s otherwise untimely notice of appeal to reflect its determination that Aiken be accorded the benefit of the permitted extension of time. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jeremy Lujan Aiken appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel a substantial assistance motion. *We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Aiken , No. 1:04-cr-00092-1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2007). We deny Aiken’s motion to order an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 779 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 779

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the arbitration of 
     initial contract negotiation disputes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 9 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the arbitration of 
     initial contract negotiation disputes, 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 ``Labor Relations First Contract 
Negotiations Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. INITIAL CONTRACT DISPUTES.

    Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(h)(1) If, not later than 60 days after the certification of a 
new representative of employees for the purpose of collective 
bargaining, the employer of the employees and the representative have 
not reached a collective bargaining agreement with respect to the terms 
and conditions of employment, the employer and the representative shall 
jointly select a mediator to mediate those issues on which the employer 
and the representative cannot agree.
    ``(2) If the employer and the representative are unable to agree 
upon a mediator, either party may request the Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service to select a mediator and the Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service shall upon the request select a person to serve as 
mediator.
    ``(3) If, not later than 30 days after the date of the selection of 
a mediator under paragraph (1) or (2), the employer and the 
representative have not reached an agreement, the employer or the 
representative may transfer the matters remaining in controversy to the 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for binding arbitration.''.
                                 <all>
```
Cite as 2017 Ark. 119



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-17-163 JUSTIN ISIAH BURNS APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered April 6, 2017 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY ON DIRECT APPEAL
MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM Appellant Justin Isiah Burns pleaded guilty to rape, admitted he was a habitual offender with two prior felony convictions, and was sentenced by a Garland County jury to life imprisonment. Burns is represented by Mark S. Fraiser, who asks to be relieved on the ground that he is not eligible to be compensated for services as appellate counsel. Arkansas Code Annotated section 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2016) provides that persons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided a state-funded secretary are eligible to seek compensation for appellate work. Counsel affirms that he is a full-time public defender with a full-time, state-funded secretary. Under these circumstances, he is not entitled to be paid for services in this appeal, and his request to be relieved is well-founded. Craigg v. State , 2012 Ark. 95 (per curiam). Therefore, we grant Fraiser’s motion to be relieved. We appoint attorney Timothy Penhallegon to represent Burns on appeal. Our clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule for the appeal.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D. C. 20549
  FORM 10-K/A
 (Admentment No.
2)
  ANNUAL REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  Commission
file number 333-138561
  SINO FIBRE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  Nevada
            760616470(State or other jurisdiction of
      incorporation or organization)
            (IRS Employer Identification No.)
  The Chrysler
Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 26 th Floor New York, New York 10174
  +852-3101-7366
   None
 
 Common Stock,
$0.001 par value
  YES [  ]    NO
[X]
  YES [  ]   
NO [X]
  YES
[X]    NO [  ]
  [X]
    [
 ] [
 ] [ 
] [X]
  YES [
 ]    NO [X]
  As of March 31, 2009,
the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity was
$2,373,335.
  As of
April 13, 2009, there were 39,555,585 shares of Common Stock outstanding.
    EXPLANATORY
NOTE
  The
filing was amended to update the exhibits which referred to a 10KSB filing
rather than 10K filing.
      SIGNATURES
    SINO FIBRE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

CLASS A COMMON STOCK                                        CLASS A COMMON STOCK

     [LOGO]                         Hewitt

<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>                                          <C>
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF  THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN              SEE REVERSE FOR STATEMENTS
    THE STATE OF DELAWARE        CANTON, MA. JERSEY CITY, NJ                  RELATING TO RIGHTS, PREFERENCES,
                                      AND NEW YORK, NY                       PRIVILEGES AND RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY
                                                                                     CUSIP 42822Q  10 0
</TABLE>

This Certifies that


is the record holder of


       FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK, $.01
                                  PAR VALUE, OF
____________________________                         ___________________________
____________________________ HEWITT ASSOCIATES, INC. ___________________________
____________________________                         ___________________________


transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized
attorney on surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate
shall not be valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and
Registrar.
 WITNESS the facsimile signatures of the Corporation's duly authorized officer's

 Dated:

/s/ C L Connolly III                                 /s/ Dale L. Gifford

     SECRETARY                                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
     EQUISERVE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
                                TRANSFER AGENT
                                AND REGISTRAR

BY

/s/ Stephen Cesso

                          AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Condensed Consolidated Statements of 
Earnings as reported on the second quarter Form 10Q and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
                                              RESTATED
</LEGEND>
                                              
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000                       
       
                                              
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jan-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             May-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Aug-02-1997
<CASH>                                         227,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,972,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,429,000
<PP&E>                                       5,450,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,365,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,353,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,981,000
<BONDS>                                        905,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,090,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,353,000
<SALES>                                      3,913,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,913,000
<CGS>                                        2,681,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                104,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             66,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        


</TABLE>
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 23

Expressing the sense of the Congress in affirmation of the National Voter

Registration Act of 1993, commonly known as the Motor Voter Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 4 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Mr. SIMON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress in affirmation of the

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly

known as the Motor Voter Act.

Whereas section 4 of article I of the Constitution provides

that the times, places, and manner of holding elections

for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed by

State legislatures, subject to laws passed by the Congress;

Whereas the results of a recent study by the Congressional

Budget Office indicate that the costs of implementing the

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly

known as the Motor Voter Act, are far less than costs

that would be considered unfunded mandates under the

criteria of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995;

and
2

•SCON 23 IS

Whereas States that have complied with the Motor Voter Act

have, through such compliance, registered new voters in

proportion to the demographics of those States: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the Congress is responsible for the ultimate

4 protection of the voting process, which responsibility

5 is to be exercised by making the voting process avail6 able to all persons who are eligible to become voters;

7 (2) it is appropriate for the Congress to affirm

8 that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993,

9 commonly known as the Motor Voter Act, is an ap10 propriate measure to ensure the full participation of

11 the American electorate in voting;

12 (3) any failure of a State to comply with the

13 Motor Voter Act is illegal;

14 (4) not later than November 5, 1995, the Gov15 ernors of the States should comply with the Motor

16 Voter Act; and

17 (5) the actions of the Attorney General in seek18 ing enforcement of the Motor Voter Act have the

19 support of the Congress.

Æ
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 68

To correct the enrollment of H.R. 3103.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 2, 1996

Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted the

following concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To correct the enrollment of H.R. 3103.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3103)

3 entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of

4 1986 to improve portability and continuity of health insur5 ance coverage in the group and individual markets, to

6 combat waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and

7 health care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings

8 accounts, to improve access to long-term care services and

9 coverage, to simplify the administration of health insur10 ance, and for other purposes’’, the Clerk of the House of

11 Representatives shall make the following correction:
2

SCON 68 ATS

1 Strike subtitle H of title II.

Æ
#### Aminata M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and U.S. Bank N.A, Trustee for the RASC 2007-EMX1 Trust; Ocwen Loan Servicing; Residential Funding Company, LLC; John Does 1 through 10, Defendants. *303Aminata M. Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 21st Mortgage Corporation; John Does 1 through 10; Ocwen Loan Servicing; Residential Funding Company, LLC; U.S. Bank National Association, Trustee for the RASC 2007-EMX1 Trust, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1659, No. 17-1534

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 20, 2017

Decided: November 30, 2017

Charles C. Iweanoge, THE IWEANOG-ES’ FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Robert H. Hillman, SAMUEL I. WHITE PC, Rockville, Maryland; Brian J. Slipakoff, Phillip Chong, DUANE MORRIS LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lees.

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In- these consolidated appeals, Aminata Williams appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) denying her motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order to prevent a foreclosure sale and, (2) dismissing her civil action as barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the district court’s opinions and we find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Williams v. 21st Mortgage Corp.,*No. 8:16-cv-01210-PX, 2017 WL 1133706 (D. Md. filed May 3, 2016, and entered May 4, 2016; Mar. 27, 2017). 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*
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11979

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-02941-VEH

KRISTOPHER SWAIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PRECISION STRIP, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(March 5, 2013)

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-11979 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Kristopher Swain appeals the summary judgment against his pro se

complaint that Precision Strip violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by 

terminating him after a supervisor learned of his interracial marriage. 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 2000e-2(a), 1981. The district court ruled that Swain failed to establish a prima 

facie case of race-based disparate treatment and, alternatively, failed to establish 

that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason proffered for his termination was 

pretextual. We affirm.

The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of 

Precision Strip. Even if we assume that Swain established a prima facie case, he

presented no evidence that his disciplinary record was merely a pretext for

disparate treatment based on race. See Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 725 (11th 

Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds, Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454, 

457, 126 S. Ct. 1195, 1197 (2006). Affidavits prepared by the plant manager, 

Brian Rismiller, and the three members of the management team responsible for 

Swain’s discharge, Delilah Glover, Roslyn Bruns, and Nick Moorman, established 

that they terminated Swain based on his repeated violations of the safety, 

performance, and attendance policies of Precision Strip. And Swain failed to 

create a genuine factual dispute about the legitimacy of those reasons. Swain 

testified about twice violating the safety and attendance policies and being placed 

on an attendance improvement plan, and he did not deny that he had been placed 

Case: 12-11979 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

on a performance improvement plan and received multiple verbal warnings, two 

written warnings, and one suspension for violating six different safety and 

performance rules. Swain complained that he was terminated because Rismiller

disapproved of Swain’s interracial marriage, but Swain testified that Rismiller met 

Swain’s wife at a picnic more than three years before he was fired and never later 

commented on the marriage or his wife’s race. Glover, Bruns, and Moorman

averred that they did not mention Swain’s marriage when deciding whether to 

terminate Swain, and Bruns and Moorman averred that they were unaware Swain’s 

wife was white.

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Precision Strip.

Case: 12-11979 Date Filed: 03/05/2013 Page: 3 of 3
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1158 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32003R1158

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2003 of 30 June 2003 fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the 2003/04 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 162 , 01/07/2003 P. 0024 - 0024 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2003

of 30 June 2003

fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the 2003/04 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002(2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 fixes the intervention price for white sugar for non-deficit areas at EUR 63,19/100 kilograms for the 2001/02 to 2005/06 marketing years.

(2) Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 provides that derived intervention prices for white sugar are to be fixed for each deficit area each year. When those prices are fixed, account is to be taken of the regional variations in the price of sugar, which, given a normal harvest and free movement of sugar, may be expected to occur under natural conditions of price formation on the market and in view of experience gained and the costs of transporting sugar from surplus areas to deficit areas.

(3) To establish whether an area is a deficit area, projections should be made based on the data returned by the Member States relating both to the current marketing year as regards consumption trends, and to the prospects for the coming marketing year as regards developments in available production. As a result, areas should be recognised as deficit areas only where the projections clearly indicate that a deficit is likely to occur.

(4) On this basis, the areas of production in Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal and Finland are likely to be deficit areas.

(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The derived intervention prices for white sugar in the deficit areas of the Community for the 2003/04 marketing year shall be:

(a) EUR 64,88 per 100 kilograms for all areas in Spain;

(b) EUR 64,65 per 100 kilograms for all areas in Ireland and the United Kingdom;

(c) EUR 65,53 per 100 kilograms for all areas in Italy;

(d) EUR 64,65 per 100 kilograms for all areas in Portugal;

(e) EUR 64,65 per 100 kilograms for all areas in Finland.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2003.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 104, 20.4.2002, p. 26.