alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2307

BRUCE KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee, and AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 4107-L) Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: May 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. Strouse, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on August 13, 1999, the district court’s record shows that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 17, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Bruce King appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action arising from his termination from employment. We have reviewed the briefs, the district court’sopinion, and the other materials before the court. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See King v. United States Postal Serv. , No. CA-98-4107-L (D. Md. Aug. 17, 1999). * 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
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**
**TERRENCE KRONK,**

**Petitioner :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 207 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the** Unpublished Memorandum and Order **of the Superior Court at No. 1853 WDA 2014 exited May 22, 2015,**  affirming **the Order of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas at No.**  **767 of 1976 exited November 5, 2013**

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW **, this 24th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**  GRANTED **on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates the prohibition against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme**  **Court of the United States in** Miller v. Alabama **, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). As a result of the recent holding by that Court that**  Miller **must be applied retroactively by the States,**  see Montgomery v. Louisiana **, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the Superior Court’s order is**  VACATED **, and the case is** REMANDED **for further proceedings consistent with**  Montgomery

**. To the extent necessary, leave is to be granted to amend the post-conviction**  **petition to assert the jurisdictional provision of the Post Conviction Relief Act extending to the recognition of constitutional rights by the Supreme Court of the United States**  **which it deems to be retroactive.** See **42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).** Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
SCPW-14-00000567

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent,

vs. ROY ALAN COSTA, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 00-1-0253)

ORDER DENYING “MOTION RULE 16. GOVERNMENT DISCOVERY INSPECTION AND DISCLOSURE . . , MOTION TO DISAGREE DECISION’S APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT’S JUDGMENT FROM WHICH THE APPEAL IS TAKEN, SHOULD NOT BE AFFIRMED” (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Roy Costa’s document entitled “Motion Rule 16. Government Discovery Inspection and Disclosure . . , Motion to Disagree Decision’s Appeal from the Second Circuit Court’s Judgment from which the Appeal is Taken, Should not be Affirmed”, which was filed as a petition for a writ of mandamus on March 18, 2014, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. An extraordinary writ, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000567 08-APR-2014 11:13 AMtherefore, is not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200,

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is

denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 8, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 1688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-434]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Notice of GSA Bulletin FTR 09-02

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of a bulletin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Bulletin informs agencies what baggage and seat choice 
fees they may reimburse their employees while on official travel. GSA 
Bulletin FTR 09-02 may be found at http://www.gsa.gov/bulletin.

DATES: The bulletin announced in this notice became effective on 
December 31, 2008, and will remain effective until the FTR is amended 
to reflect the changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, please 
contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of 
Travel, Transportation and Asset Management, at (202) 219-2349.
    Please cite FTR Bulletin 09-02.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Section 301-10.122 of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 CFR 
301-10.122) stipulates that Federal employees, with few exceptions, 
must use coach-class accommodations. As a result of many airlines now 
charging additional fees for checked baggage, as well as for seat 
choice in the coach-class cabin, this bulletin was developed to clarify 
which of these fees may be reimbursed by Federal agencies.

B. Procedures

    Bulletins regarding the Federal Travel Regulation are located on 
the Internet at http://www.gsa.gov/bulletin as Federal Travel 
Regulation bulletins.

     Dated: January 5, 2009.
Russell H. Pentz,
Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Travel, 
Transportation, and Asset Management.
[FR Doc. E9-434 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

I, Joaquin F.Blaya, Chief Executive Officer of Radio Unica Corp. (the “Company”), pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

 

1.             Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31,2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I haveexecuted this Certification this 14th day of May, 2003.

 

 
|   | /s/ Joaquin F. Blaya                 |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joaquin F. Blaya                     |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radio UnicaCommunications Corp and will be retained by Radio Unica Corp. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
a50235594ex10_1.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1












  Named Executive Officers Long-Term Equity Incentive Fiscal Year 2013 Awards
















	
Executive Officer

	
Restricted Stock* 


(Performance-Based 


Vesting) (#)

	
Restricted Stock* 


(Time-Based


Vesting) (#)

	
Restricted Stock*


(Performance-Based


Vesting TSR) (#)








	
Charles H. Turner

	  	  	  
	  	
Senior Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer

	
9,598

	
10,970

	
17,142







 


 



	
Catherine David

	  	  	  
	
 

	
Executive Vice President, 


Merchandising

	
8,285

	
9,468

	
14,797


	
 


 


Gregory S. Humenesky

	  	  	  
	  	
Executive Vice President,


Human Resources

	
4,667

	
5,334

	
8,340


	
 


 


Sharon M. Leite

	  	  	  
	  	
Executive Vice President,


Stores

	
7,072

	
8,083

	
12,632











 



	 	
* 

	
 All equity awards were granted under the Pier 1 Imports, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, restated as amended.  The grants were effective April 6, 2012.
#### Peterson v. Kirkegard

OP 16-0668

11/22/16

Denied

Original Proceeding Habeas Corpus
Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- WILLIAM ELLIS SMITH, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-11-645

DECISION

On February 2,2015, the Court found the Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his sentence and ordered that his sentence be revoked. The Court resentenced the Defendant to the Department of Corrections for three (3) years, with one (1) year suspended, for the offense of Aggravated Assault, a Felony, in violation of §45-5-202, MCA. The Court recommended that the Defendant be screened for the Great Falls Pre-Release Program and upon acceptance, follow all requirements and provisions. If not accepted, the Court ordered the Defendant to be placed at a Department of Corrections facility at the discretion of the Department. In all other respects, the previous Orders, Conditions, and reasons of the Court entered on July 19, 2012, remain unchanged and were imposed. Defendant was granted credit for pre-trial incarceration time served from June 12, 2015 through June 16, 2015 and November 13, 2015 through January 19, 2016.

On August 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by Vision Net from the Great Falls Probation and Parole office and was represented by Brent Getty of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are *82insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Done in open Court this 4th day of August, 2016.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2016.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KANEKA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JBS HAIR INC., UNO & COMPANY, LTD., JINNY 

BEAUTY SUPPLY CO INC,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________ 

2014-1172

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas in No. 3:10-cv-01430-P, Judge 

Jorge A. Solis.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ANTHONY J. DAIN, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. 

Also represented by FREDERICK K. TAYLOR, RAYMOND K.

CHAN, DAVE DEONARINE. 

MICHAEL JOHN SACKSTEDER, Fenwick & West, LLP, 

San Francisco, CA, argued for defendants-appellants. Also 

represented by JOSEPH STEPHEN BELICHICK, JAE WON 

SONG, Mountain View, CA; JEFFREY A. WARE, Seattle, 
 

WA; RYAN J. MARTON, Tyz Marton Schumann, San Francisco, CA. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 7, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
No. 09-8354.

#### Addolfo Davis, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 980, 130 S. Ct. 1707,

176 L. Ed. 2d 195,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2117.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 388 Ill. App. 3d 869, 328 Ill. Dec. 387, 904 N.E.2d 149.
No. 11-7362.

#### Andrew Fullman, Petitioner v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, et al.

565 U.S. 1129, 132 S. Ct. 1043,

181 L. Ed. 2d 767,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 56.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 418 Fed. Appx. 75.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1273

_____________________________

JEREMIAH SCHRODER, Former 

Husband,

Appellant,

v.

LAURA AARON SCHRODER,

Former Wife,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

James P. Nilon, Judge.

October 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Dawn Weiger O’Neill, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Leslie Smith Haswell, Gainesville, for Appellee.
2 June 2008 ************************************** 

NSN: 8910-01-560-2547 * MONOGRAPH NO: MCW/LRP 67 

 ************************************** 

Item: Ice Cream Sandwich, Cookies and Cream (Flavor 1) (ICSD) 

Document: PCR-I-002, Ice Cream Sandwich, Freeze Dehydrated 

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 134 kcal Component Classification: Secondary 

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80F 

Item Characteristics

Appearance: 

Cookies: Two brown intact, circular chocolate cookies one on each side of the ice 

cream center. The cookies may have dockets on the surface. 

Center: The center shall be freeze dehydrated cream colored ice cream with small 

chocolate cookie pieces throughout. 

Odor: Cookies: have a baked chocolate cookie odor. 

Center: The freeze dehydrated ice cream shall have a sweet dairy and dried milk odor. 

Flavor: 

Cookies: have a baked chocolate cookie flavor. 

Center: The freeze dehydrated ice cream shall have a sweet dairy and dried milk flavor. 

The ice cream shall also have a vanilla and slight chocolate cookie flavor. 

Texture: 

Cookies: The circular chocolate cookies shall be crisp and moderately crunchy. 

Center: The freeze dehydrated ice cream center shall be fine textured, have a slightly 

firm bite with a creamy, slightly gummy texture that melts quickly in mouth. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Gray/ darkened filling, collapsed, crystallized, cookie falling off filling. 

Odor: Slightly oxidized, cooked milk, sour. 

Flavor: Old dairy, slightly burnt, sour, slightly caramelized, buttery, low flavor (cardboard). 

Texture: Hard/ firm bite, crumbly, crisp ice cream – shatters then melts to gritty, brittle. 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures NA 

Special Notes Product is not for rehydration, eaten dry.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-42,081-05 IN RE JOHN A. VALLAIR, III, Relator

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS C AUSE NO. 07-00433 IN THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT

F ROM JEF F ERSON COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an a pplication for a w rit of mandamus under this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in J efferson County and his application has not been properly forwarded to this Court. Respondent, the Dis t rict Clerk of J efferson County , shall f orward Relator’s habeas application to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habeas application in J efferson County , or forward a copy of an order desig nating issues tog ether with correspondence documenting the date the State received Relator’s habeas application. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 1 1.07, § 3(c) and (d); T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)(5). T his motion f or leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty day s from the date of this order.2

F iled: December 8, 2021 Do not publish
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4894

AN ACT

To provide for certain access to national crime information 

databases by schools and educational agencies for employment purposes, with respect to individuals who work 

with children.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 4894 EH 

1 SECTION 1. ACCESS TO NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION 

2 DATABASES BY SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL 

3 AGENCIES FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General of the 

5 United States shall, upon request of the chief executive 

6 officer of a State, conduct fingerprint-based checks of the 

7 national crime information databases (as defined in sec8 tion 534(f)(3)(A) of title 28, United States Code, as redes9 ignated under subsection (e)), pursuant to a request sub10 mitted by an entity of the State, or unit of local govern11 ment, which is designated to conduct background checks 

12 on individuals employed by, under consideration for em13 ployment by, or volunteering for, a private or public ele14 mentary school, private or public secondary school, local 

15 educational agency, or State educational agency in that 

16 State in a position in which the individual would work with 

17 or around children. Where possible, the check shall include 

18 a fingerprint-based check of State criminal history data19 bases. The Attorney General and the States may charge 

20 any applicable fees for these checks. 

21 (b) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.—An individual 

22 having information derived as a result of a check under 

23 subsection (a) may release that information only to an ap24 propriate officer of a private elementary school, private 

25 secondary school, local educational agency, or State edu-
3

•HR 4894 EH 

1 cational agency, or to any person authorized by law to re2 ceive that information. 

3 (c) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—An individual who know4 ingly exceeds the authority in subsection (a), or knowingly 

5 releases information in violation of subsection (b), shall 

6 be imprisoned not more than 10 years or fined under title 

7 18, United States Code, or both. 

8 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘ele9 mentary school’’, ‘‘local educational agency’’, ‘‘secondary 

10 school’’, and ‘‘State educational agency’’, have the mean11 ings given to those terms in section 9101 of the Elemen12 tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

13 7801). 

14 (e) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 534 of title 

15 28, United States Code, as amended by section 905(a) of 

16 the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 

17 Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–162), is 

18 further amended by redesignating the second subsection 

19 (e) as subsection (f).

Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4894

AN ACT

To provide for certain access to national crime into individuals who work with children. agencies for employment purposes, with respect formation databases by schools and educational
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51041 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DORIS DENISE MCELRATH-BEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-03-CR-114-2

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Doris Denise McElrath-Bey appeals the sentence imposed

following her guilty-plea conviction for one count of making a

false statement during acquisition of a firearm in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(2). She asserts that the

district court erred in determining that her base offense level

was 20 on account of a prior state felony conviction for

residential arson. She also asserts that the district court

erred in failing to grant her a downward departure from the
No. 03-51041

-2-

United States Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range because she

purchased a firearm in order to protect herself from threatened

harm.

Inasmuch as McElrath-Bey concedes that her prior state

felony conviction was for arson, an enumerated crime of violence

under the relevant sentencing guideline, the district court did

not err in determining that the base offense level was 20. See

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and § 4B1.2(a)(2) and comment. (n.1). 

The district court determined that the facts of the case did not

warrant a downward departure, and therefore this court does not

have jurisdiction to review the refusal to depart. United States

v. Palmer, 122 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION.