alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2569

PAUL J. BLOOM; YVONNE BLOOM; JOSEPH SCOTT

BLOOM, Minor,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SCHOOL BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF STAFFORD, VIRGINIA; DORIS TORRICE, School Board Chairwoman;

RUSSELL WATSON, Superintendent; ANDREIA

BENGIER, Director of Special Education Programs; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-95-661-A)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul J. Bloom, Yvonne Bloom, Joseph Scott Bloom, Appellants Pro Se.

Kathleen Shepherd Mehfoud, HAZEL & THOMAS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Alison Paige Landry, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's order declining to

assert jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act. 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400-1485 (West

1990 & Supp. 1995). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of

the district court. Bloom v. School Bd. Stafford, No. CA-95-661-A

(E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
No. 09-749.

#### Elijah W. Ratcliff, Petitioner v. LHR, Inc.

559 U.S. 972, 130 S. Ct. 1699,

176 L. Ed. 2d 182,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2051.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, denied.
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 Maritime Commission

          - [Docket No. 08-07] 

                    In the Request for Comments in Docket 08-07, served February 19, 2009 and appearing in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 25, 2009 (74 FR 8541), the date in the first sentence is corrected to read “March 13, 2009.”                 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-4598 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
No. 09-8846.

#### Carl Dwayne Crawford, Petitioner v. Edward M. Frimel, et al.

559 U.S. 987, 130 S. Ct. 1728,

176 L. Ed. 2d 206,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1925.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 337 Fed. Appx. 211.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11



V-TWIN ACQUISITIONS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND 1999



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                           2000          1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>
SHARES OUTSTANDING.........................................              4,127,833      3,700,000
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING........................              4,127,833      3,650,000
NET INCOME (LOSS)...........................................            $ (531,960)    $  (91,892)
TOTAL NET INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE FOR COMMON STOCKHOLDERS'              $ (531,960)    $  (91,892)
                                                                        ===========    ===========

BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE:
LOSS PER SHARE                                                              $(0.13)        $(0.02)
                                                                            -------        -------
</TABLE>



                                      13
# C_2016190EN.01000301.xml

| 28.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/3

---

Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2016/C 190/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex IIa to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 March 2017, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

1

(2)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 125.

2

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 30.

4

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 21-0298

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND 

PROTECTION OF K.G.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Hunt County,

5th District.

May 14, 2021

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, 

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify 

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case 

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under 

the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this 

the 17th day of June, 2021.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
ACCEPTED 01-14-00774-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/10/2015 11:59:49 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 11, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30662 Summary Calendar

EMMA W. MCDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-1326

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant Emma McDonald brought discrimination claims against Appellee Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. McDonald filed her lawsuit on the last day before the limitations period for her claims expired. McDonald did not have service made on Appellee. Under threat of dismissal for failure to prosecute she ultimately had service made. McDonald did not appear for a noticed deposition. There were no objections filed to thenotice. Counsel for Appellee traveled to the out of state

deposition only to be subjected to McDonald’s failure to appear. McDonald was then ordered to appear for deposition. She did not appear although aware of the order to appear for deposition. McDonald now complains of the dismissal of her claim for failure to comply with the court’s orders. We find no merit in her claims that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her claims. The record reflects a willful and intentional disregard of required appearances for depositions in McDonald’s own lawsuit. No abuse has been shown. We find her argument meritless and her authority inapposite. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 11-7531.

#### Larry W. Brown, Petitioner v. Civigenics, et al.

565 U.S. 1181, 132 S. Ct. 1149,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1023,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1011.

January 23, 2012.

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

Same case below, 439 Fed. Appx. 370.
No. 10-10912.

#### Beverly Ann Blake, Petitioner v. Warren Maley.

565 U.S. 1075, 132 S. Ct. 803,

181 L. Ed. 2d 514,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8364.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 856, 132 S. Ct. 189, 181 L. Ed. 2d 97, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6287.
Form of Amd. 2 to the Aleris Corp. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan Stock Option Agmt.



 Exhibit 10.11.2 

ALERIS CORPORATION 
 2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Form of 

AMENDMENT 2 TO THE 
 STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT 

                       
                     , 2012 
  

TO: 
 FROM: Aleris Corporation (formerly
“Aleris Holding Company”) 
  

	Re:	Amendment 2 to Option Award Agreement 


On June 11, 2010 you were granted an option to purchase shares of common stock of Aleris Corporation (the “Company”) (the
“Option”) pursuant to an Award Agreement issued under the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) amended as of April 28, 2011 by Amendment 1 to the Award Agreement. 

In light of the Company becoming a public company, we have amended, restated and renamed the Plan as the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan and we are amending
the terms of your Award Agreement, effective immediately prior to the effectiveness of an initial public offering of the Company pursuant to the Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2011, as amended (the
“IPO”), as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 1(e). Key Terms; Change of Control. The reference to Plan Section 11 in Section 1(e) is amended to Plan Section 12.


  

	2.	Section 2. Exercise. The last two sentences of Section 2 are deleted. 


 

	3.	Section 3. Early Termination of the Option. The references to Plan Sections 11 and 15(b) are amended to Plan Sections 12 and 17(b), respectively.


  

	4.	Section 4. Company Call Right. Section 4 is deleted. 

  

	5.	Section 6. Option Subject to Plan and Stockholders Agreement. Section 6 is amended to change the heading to Option Subject to Plan and
Sections 6 (a) and (b) are amended to read as follows: 

  

	 	(a)	Employee Acknowledgements. By entering into this Award Agreement, you agree and acknowledge that (i) the Option is subject in all respects to the Plan;
(ii) the Option is subject to Plan provisions under which, in certain circumstances, the Committee may terminate your Option and/or make adjustments to the kind and/or number of shares or property underlying the Option; and (iii) the
Committee has discretion to interpret and administer the Plan and this Award Agreement and its judgments made in accordance with the Plan are final. 









	 	(b)	Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between any term or provision contained herein and a term or provision of the amended and restated Plan, the term or
provision contained in the amended and restated Plan shall control. 

  

	6.	The acknowledgment and statement within the box in the Award Agreement is deleted. 


 

	7.	Effective Date of this Amendment. This Amendment is effective immediately prior to the effectiveness of the IPO. 


 

	8.	Continued Terms of Option. Except as otherwise amended in this Agreement, your Option remains subject in all respects to the terms and conditions of the Award
Agreement, Amendment 1 and the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan. A copy of the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan has been provided to you. 

  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	  
	Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary


  
 2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reward Enterprises Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Edward Withrow III, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.	the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:	  February 9, 2004				/s/ Edward W. Withrow III

CEO

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reward Enterprises Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Joseph Vigliarolo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

3.	the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

4.	the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:	  February 9, 2004				/s/ Joseph Vigliarolo

CFO
No. 09-8600.

#### Ronald Sutton, Petitioner v. Warden, West Carrol Detention Center.

559 U.S. 1013, 130 S. Ct. 1895,

176 L. Ed. 2d 376,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2663.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-7644.

#### Robert Peter Russell, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1137, 132 S. Ct. 1067,

181 L. Ed. 2d 782,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 515.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 432 Fed. Appx. 276.
* 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 November 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41267 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TIRSO CASTILLO-ARREOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

No. 1:04-CR-348-5

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tirso Castillo-Arreola pleaded guilty of conspiracy to transport and harbor aliens within the United States and transporting aliens within the United States. The court sentenced him to the top of the guideline range, 105 months’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to his other sentences. The court stated that it adopted the findings of theNo. 05-41267 -2- presentence report and considered the evidence adduced at the trial of Castillo-Arreola’s co-defendants. Castillo-Arreola argues that the court imposed the sentence without consideration of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because counsel raised no objection to the court’s statement of its justification or lack thereof for the sentence, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Akpan , 407 F.3d 360, 368 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The decision in United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), is dispositive. There we stated unequivocally that “[i]f the sentencing judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range, in our reasonableness review we will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” Id. at 519. Castillo-Arreola does not argue that his sentence is unreasonable or that his guideline range

was improperly calculated. Because the sentence is within the guideline range , we infer that the district court considered the § 3553 factors. See Mares , id. ; United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya , 219 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2000). Castillo-Arreola has failed to show plain error in his sentencing. AFFIRMED.
No. 09-8472.

#### Lloyd T. Stephens, Petitioner v. Fourth Judicial District Court, et al.

559 U.S. 934, 130 S. Ct. 1569,

176 L. Ed. 2d 108,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1111.

February 22, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 15, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
EXHIBIT 34.1

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Management Committee

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC



We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange  Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2017-2, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x)(A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2017 and for the period from October 25, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2017-2, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2017-2.  Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2017 and for the period from October 25, 2017 to December 31, 2017 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ CohnReznick LLP



Roseland, New Jersey

March 23, 2018