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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ALLAN ABSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-6420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ALLAN ABSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CR-97-339-A)

Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999
2

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

No. 99-6095 dismissed and No. 99-6420 affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

James Allan Abston, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed”

on December 10, 1998, and December 29, 1998, the district court’s

records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on January

27, 1999, and December 31, 1998, respectively. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the judgment or 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).

3

PER CURIAM:

James Allan Abston seeks to appeal the district court’s denial

of his motion to file an untimely 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998) motion challenging his 1997 convictions on drug and

firearms charges. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, in No.

99-6095, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Abston, No. CR-97-339-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 1998 & Jan. 27, 1999).*

In No. 99-6420, Abston appeals the district court’s denial of a

motion to reconsider an order denying his motion for preparation of

transcripts. As Abston did not make a satisfactory showing of

particularized need for the transcripts, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994),

we affirm the district court’s ruling. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would

not aid the decisional process.

No. 99-6095 - DISMISSED

No. 99-6420 - AFFIRMED
No. 09-9677.

#### Jeffery Daniel Hughen, Petitioner v. Texas.

560 U.S. 911,130 S. Ct. 3291,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1196,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3965.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.

Same case below, 297 S.W.3d 330.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4817 

To prohibit entities owned or controlled by foreign governments from carrying 

out operations at seaports in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2006 

Mr. HAYWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit entities owned or controlled by foreign governments from carrying out operations at seaports in the 

United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF U.S. SEA4 PORTS BY CERTAIN FOREIGN ENTITIES. 

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—No entity that is owned or con6 trolled by a foreign government may— 

7 (1) conduct operations at any seaport in the 

8 United States; or 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4817 IH 

1 (2) enter into any contract or other agreement 

2 to conduct such operations. 

3 (b) REGULATIONS.—The President shall promulgate 

4 such regulations as may be necessary to enforce the re5 quirements of subsection (a), including requiring any per6 son to furnish, in the form of reports or otherwise, such 

7 information as is necessary to enforce such requirements. 

8 (c) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates any re9 quirement of subsection (a) or any regulation promulgated 

10 under subsection (b) shall be subject to the penalties 

11 under section 206 of the International Emergency Eco12 nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) to the same extent 

13 as such penalties apply to violations under that Act. 

14 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

15 (1) FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘for16 eign government’’ includes any agency or instrumen17 tality of a foreign government. 

18 (2) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘United 

19 States’’ means the several States, the District of Co20 lumbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or posses21 sion of the United States. 

22 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

23 This Act shall be effective as of February 28, 2006. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
No. 09-9006.

#### Bryan Lefey-Rivera, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1052, 130 S. Ct. 2350,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2979.

176 L. Ed. 2d 568,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 586 F.3d 532.
Exhibit 10.38

 

BUNGE LIMITED BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 

DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’
 COMPENSATION

 

(Effective as of January 1, 2011)

Annual Retainer

 

·                                          $75,000 per year.

 

Lead Independent Director Supplemental Retainer

 

·                                          $20,000 per year.

 

Committee Chairman Fees

 

·                                          $20,000 per year for Audit Committee chair.

·                                          $15,000 per year for each other committee chair.

 

Committee Member Fees

 

·                                          $10,000 per year for Audit Committee membership.

·                                          $0 per year for each other committee membership.

 

Meeting Fees

 

·                                          If the Board of Directors meets more than 10 times per year, each non-employee director will receive a fee of $1,000 for each additional meeting attended.

·                                          If a committee meets more than 10 times per year, each committee member will receive a fee of $1,000 for each additional meeting attended.

 

Equity Awards

 

·                                          Pursuant to the 2007 Non-Employee Directors Equity Incentive Plan, an annual equity award will be granted to each continuing non-employee director as of the date of Bunge’s annual general meeting of the shareholders.  The value and form of award are recommended by the Compensation Committee.

 

·                                          Pursuant to the 2007 Non-Employee Directors Equity Incentive Plan, an equity award will be granted upon a new non-employee director’s initial election or appointment to the Board of Directors.  The award will be a pro rata portion of the awards made to the non-employee directors generally on the immediately preceding date of grant based on the number of days from the date of the director’s initial appointment or election to the next annual general meeting.

 

1
Order entered September 22 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 15

- 00826

- CR

QUIENCY LAJOSHUA DAV IS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 219

- 82308

- 2014



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.
On August 18, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the
reporter’s record had not been filed. On September 19, 2015, we received the reporter’s record

a nd on September 21, 2015, we received the exhibits. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the
appeal, we VACATE the August 18, 2015 order requiring findings.

We ORDER the reporter’s record filed as of the date of this order.
Appellant’s brief is due wi thin thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
`EXHIBIT 23.2`

|
|

`================================================================================

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Pender Newkirk & Company LLP consents to the use on Form 10-K of our report
dated May 8, 2007, except for the statement of changes in shareholders'
deficiency for the period August 10, 2006 (date of inception) through December
31, 2006, for which the date is April 15, 2008 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Nexgen Biofuels, Inc. and Subsidiaries to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2008.`

`--------------------------------
Pender Newkirk & Company LLP
Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
April l5, 2008

           PENDER NEWKIRK & COMPANY LLP o CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  100 South Ashley Drive o Suite 1650 o Tampa, Florida 33602 o (813) 229-2321 o
                               Fax: (813) 229-2359
================================================================================
                                PCAOB REGISTERED`

|
|

`MEMBER OF AGN INTERNATIONAL, LTD. - A WORLDWIDE
     ASSOCIATION OF SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING AND CONSULTING FIRMS
  MEMBER OF PRIVATE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION AND CENTER FOR AUDIT QUALITY OF
             THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS`
No. 09-7829.

#### Vance Bradshaw, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1094, 130 S. Ct. 2371,

176 L. Ed. 2d 770,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3552.

April 26, 2010.

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

Same case below, 580 F.3d 1129.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATE
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)





The
undersigned, Julian R. Geiger has executed this certificate in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s report
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2008 (the
“Report”).





The
undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge:





1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”);
and





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





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 4th
day of September 2008.





/s/
      JULIAN R. GEIGERJulian
      R. GeigerChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.





29
Hanford 242–—A Evaporator Briefing

by DOE to the

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

September 19, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.

Name Organization

Joyce L. Connery DNFSB—Chair

Thomas A. Summers DNFSB—Vice Chair

Jessie H. Roberson DNFSB—Board Member

Kevin Lyskowski DNFSB—General Counsel

Katherine Herrera DNFSB—Acting Executive Director of Operations

Timothy Dwyer DNFSB—Acting Technical Director

Todd Davis DNFSB—Acting Deputy Technical Director

David Campbell DNFSB—Acting Associate Technical Director for Nuclear Materials Processing 

& Stabilization

Greg Sosson DOE—Deputy Assistant Secretary for Safety, Security, and Quality Assurance

Paul Schroder DOE—Deputy Assistant Manager for Tank Farms Project

Karthik Subramanian WRPS—Chief Engineer

Brian Stickney DOE–—Hanford Deputy Manager

Brenda Hawks DOE—Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Field Operations/Chief Nuclear 

Safety

Steven Petras DOE—Office of the Departmental Representative to the DNFSB

David Nester DOE—Office of the Departmental Representative to the DNFSB

Joe Olencz DOE—Office of the Departmental Representative to the DNFSB

Zahira Cruz–—Perez DOE—EM DNFSB Liaison

Steve McDuffie DOE—Seismic Engineer

Delmar Noyes DOE–—Assistant Manager for Tank Farms Project

Kevin Witt DOE—Director, Office of Safety Management

Heidi Ascosi DOE—Contractor Support

Joshua Allen DOE—Acting Nuclear Safety Division Director

Tom Goetz WRPS—Nuclear Safety Manager

Kevin Sandgren DOE—Nuclear Safety Tank Waste Authorization Basis Team Lead

Brian Vance DOE—Hanford Site Manager
Glyn Trenchard DOE—Assistant Manager for Safety & Quality

Tashina Jasso DOE—Acting Tank Farms Program Division Director

Jamie Evans DOE—Support Contractor

James Bingham WRPS—DNFSB Liaison

Benjamin Caleca DNFSB—Resident Inspector

Farid Bamdad DNFSB—Technical Staff

Jonathan Plaue DNFSB—Technical Staff

Joseph Gilman DNFSB–—Deputy General Counsel

Padraic Fox DNFSB–—Resident Inspector

Robert Csillag DNFSB—Technical Staff

Eric A. Ruesch DOE—Office of Enterprise Assessment, Nuclear Engineer

Nichole Huntington DNFSB—Resident Inspector

Mark Wright DNFSB—Technical Staff

Omolola Fawole DNFSB—Division of Budget and Finance

Brad Sharpless DNFSB—Technical Staff
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105·3901
 

OFfiCE OF THE 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

September 21, 2010 

The Honorable Wendsler Nosie 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

P.O. Box 0 

San Carlos, Arizona 85550 

Dear Chairperson Nosie: 

The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) intends to retain the designations for the 1987 24-hour coarse particle (PM\o) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) that cunently apply to the San Carlos Apache lands. 

On December 30,2009, my predecessor, Laura Yoshii, sent you a letter informing you 

that, based on continuing violations of the PMIQ NAAQS in Pinal County, EPA had determined 

that a revised designation for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS would be necessary. We have 

completed our evaluation and intend to redesignate a portion of Pinal County as 

"nonattainment," as described in the enclosed detailed analysis. We have, however, determined 

that emissions from activities occurring on your reservation are not causing or contributing to the 

violations measured in western Pinal County. As a result, we are not proposing to include your 

tribal lands in the new PM10 nonattainment area. The "unclassifiable" designation that applies to 

most of your lands, and the "nonattainment" designation that applies to the small portion of the 

San Carlos Apache Reservation that is included in the Hayden PM\o nonattainment area, will stay 

the same. 

A notice inviting public comment on our proposal will be published in the Federal 

Register in the near future. I have enclosed a pre-publication copy with this letter. Should you 

have additional information that you wish to be considered by EPA in this process, please 

provide it to us by the end of the public comment period. We intend to make final designation 

decisions for the 1987 24-hour PM10NAAQS for areas addressed in the current proposal before 

the end of201O. 

Prin/td on Rl!cycl~d Paper 
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff to ensure a healthy 

environment. Should you or your air quality staff have any questions, please contact Colleen 

McKaughan, Associate Air Division Director at 520-498-0118. 

Sincerely, 

Jar a lumenfeld 

Ronal Administrator 

Enclosures 

cc: Loretta Stone, Environmental Director (via email) 

2
exv10w13wc







Exhibit 10.13(c)




SECOND AMENDMENT OF

U.S. BANK EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE DEFERRED COMPENSATION

PLAN (2005 Statement)




     The U.S. Bank Executive Employee Deferred Compensation Plan (2005 Statement) (the “Plan”)
is amended in the following respects:


1. DEFERRALS. Effective January 1, 2010, a new Section 3.3 shall be added to the Plan that reads
as follows:




     3.3 Suspension of Deferral. If a Participant obtains a hardship distribution from a
401(k) plan sponsored by the Company (or an entity under common control with the Company for
purposes of sections 414(b) and (c) of the Code), then as required under 26 C.F.R. §
1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E)(2) and as permitted under 26 C.F.R. § 1.409A-3(j)(4)(viii), the
Participant’s contributions this Plan shall be suspended for the minimum period required under the
Code and accompanying regulations.


2. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Effective January 1, 2010, Section 10.9 shall be amended to add a new
sentence after the first sentence that reads in full as follows:



Each provision shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with section 409A of the Code
and guidance provided thereunder.



3. SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as expressly amended above, the Plan shall continue in full
force and effect.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6835
ARTHUR MCDORN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Charles M. Condon, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-3556-19BD) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur McDorn Wil liams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 09-9932.

#### Daniel Lee Dove, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1114, 130 S. Ct. 2422,

176 L. Ed. 2d 936,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3801.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 877.
WebFilings | EDGAR view


 


EXHIBIT 10.1
SUMMARY OF KEY TERMS OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH PACIFICORP'S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 
 
PacifiCorp's named executive officers (other than its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Greg Abel) and its other employee directors each receive an annual salary and participate in health insurance and other benefit plans on the same basis as other employees, as well as certain other compensation and benefit plans described in PacifiCorp's Annual Report on Form 10-K. Mr. Abel is employed by PacifiCorp's parent company, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company ("MEHC") and is not directly compensated by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp reimburses MEHC for the cost of Mr. Abel's time spent on PacifiCorp matters, including compensation paid to him by MEHC, pursuant to an intercompany administrative services agreement among MEHC and its subsidiaries. 
 
The named executive officers and directors are also eligible to receive a cash incentive award under PacifiCorp's Annual Incentive Plan ("AIP"). The AIP provides for a discretionary annual cash award that is determined on a subjective basis and paid in December. In addition to the AIP, the named executive officers are eligible to receive discretionary cash performance awards periodically during the year to reward the accomplishment of significant non-recurring tasks or projects. The named executive officers and directors are participants in MEHC's Long-Term Incentive Partnership Plan ("LTIP"). A copy of the LTIP is attached as Exhibit 10.11 to the MEHC Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and incorporated by reference herein. 
 
Base salary for named executive officers and employee directors for PacifiCorp's fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 (excluding Mr. Abel) is shown in the following table:
 
					
	Name and Title
	 
	Base Salary

	 
	 
	 

	Douglas K. Stuver
	 
	$
	239,269
	 

	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	A. Richard Walje
	 
	368,000
	 

	President, Rocky Mountain Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	R. Patrick Reiten
	 
	290,000
	 

	President, Pacific Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Micheal G. Dunn
	 
	275,000
	 

	President, PacifiCorp Energy
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Brent E. Gale
	 
	292,750
	 

	Director
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Natalie L. Hocken
	 
	194,164
	 

	Director
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Mark C. Moench
	 
	222,525
	 

	Director
	 
	 




 
Messrs. Walje, Reiten, Dunn, Gale and Moench and Ms. Hocken are directors of PacifiCorp, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of PacifiCorp. Messrs. Abel, Anderson and Goodman are employees of MEHC, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of MEHC.
December 8 , 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KENNETH RAY RANDLE , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00 784

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw the notice of appeal. Having considered the motion, the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED and that the appellant pay all costs expended in this appeal, and further orders this decision
certif ied below for observance.

We further order the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate immediately.
Exhibit 24.2
POWER OF ATTORNEY
     The undersigned does hereby appoint G. Peter D’Aloia, J. Paul McGrath andGary J. Van Domelen as his true and lawful attorneys to sign American StandardCompanies Inc. (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, and any amendments thereto, on behalf of the undersigned asa director of the Company, and to file the same, with any exhibits thereto,with the Securities and Exchange Commission; each of said attorneys shall havethe power to act hereunder with or without the others.   **Signature** **Date**** ** ** **/s/ Steven E. Anderson  (Steven E. Anderson) February 5, 2004   /s/ Jared L. Cohon  (Jared L. Cohon) February 5, 2004   /s/ Steven F. Goldstone  (Steven F. Goldstone) February 5, 2004   /s/ Edward E. Hagenlocker  (Edward E. Hagenlocker) February 5, 2004   /s/ James F. Hardymon  (James F. Hardymon) February 5, 2004   /s/ Ruth Ann Marshall  (Ruth Ann Marshall) February 5, 2004   /s/ Roger W. Parsons  (Roger W. Parsons) February 5, 2004