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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4100

AJA J. MCCLENNY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-02-176)

Submitted: June 10, 2003

Decided: June 19, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Research and Writing

Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United

States Attorney, Peter S. Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Following a bench trial, the district court found Aja J. McClenny

guilty of five counts: possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute on March 27, 2002 (Count One), possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on March 27, 2002 (Count

Three), possession of marijuana with intent to distribute on March 27,

2002 (Count Four), possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of

controlled substances on March 27, 2002 (Count Six), and possession

of crack cocaine with intent to distribute it on April 18, 2002 (Count

Seven). The court sentenced McClenny to thirty-six months imprisonment for Counts One, Four, Six, and Seven, and to sixty consecutive

months imprisonment for Count Three. 

On appeal, McClenny alleges that there was insufficient evidence

to support her convictions for Counts One and Three. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v.

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), we find the evidence was sufficient to support McClenny’s convictions for Counts One and Three.

See United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.) (giving test

to determine whether possession of a firearm was in furtherance of a

drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 123 S.

Ct. 555 (2002); United States v. Samad, 754 F.2d 1091, 1096 (4th Cir.

1984) (providing elements of possession with intent to distribute

under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)). 

Accordingly, we affirm McClenny’s convictions. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. MCCLENNY
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5202 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5202

   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care 
and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
                                centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2006

 Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Filner) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care 
and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
                                centers.

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

SECTION 1. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC CARE AND SERVICES TO 
              VETERANS.

    Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 
Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The program''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer than 75 medical 
centers by not later than December 31, 2008, and at all medical centers 
by not later than December 31, 2010.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-9824.

#### Astolfo Torres, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1100, 130 S. Ct. 2392,

176 L. Ed. 2d 782,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3584.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Sheila L. WEEKS, Plaintiff v. William David WEEKS, Defendant

No. COA18-1076

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 20, 2019

VACATED AND REMANDED.
# Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Zimbabwe

On March 6, 2003, by Executive Order 13288, the President declared a national emergency and blocked the property of persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706). He took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions. These actions have contributed to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, to politically motivated violence and intimidation, and to political and economic instability in the southern African region.

On November 22, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13391 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 by ordering the blocking of the property of additional persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.

On July 25, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13469, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 and ordered the blocking of the property of additional persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.

Because the actions and policies of these persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on March 6, 2003, and the measures adopted on that date, on November 22, 2005, and on July 25, 2008, to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond March 6, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                        and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. E9-4870

Billing code 3195-W9-P
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60717

Summary Calendar

DALI RAMON DAVILA-CATIN

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A94 359 567

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dali Ramon Davila-Catin (Davila), a native and citizen of Nicaragua,

petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely. Davila

argues that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen because he has an

absolute right to de novo review of the denial of Temporary Protected Status

(TPS). He further asserts that the motion to reopen was timely as to the denial

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 9, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60717

2

of TPS because he was not denied TPS until January 8, 2008. He argues that

the denial of his motion to reopen would lead to an absurd result and that he is

entitled to a waiver for his conviction of marijuana possession. Davila also

argues that the denial of his motion to reopen violated his due process right to

an administrative review of the denial of TPS. The Government responds by

arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to grant

discretionary relief.

Because Davila seeks review of the BIA’s sua sponte authority to deny a

motion to reopen and such authority is discretionary, this court lacks jurisdiction

to review the BIA’s decision. See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-

20 (5th Cir. 2008). Davila’s argument that his due process rights were violated

by the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen is unavailing. There is no liberty

interest in a motion to reopen. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550

(5th Cir. 2006). 

Davila’s argument in his reply brief that the BIA is without discretion to

deny his motion to reopen was not raised before the BIA. Likewise, Davila’s

argument that his motion to reopen was timely filed was not raised before the

BIA. Davila has not exhausted his administrative remedies. As such, this court

lacks jurisdiction to consider these issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v.

Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 47 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5416]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

Time and Date: 10 a.m. (Eastern Time), March 16, 2009.

Place: 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.

Status: Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED

Parts Open to the Public

1. Approval of the minutes of the February 17, 2009 Board member 
meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.
    b. Investment Performance Report.
    c. Legislative Report.

Parts Closed to the Public

3. Propriety Information.
4. Personnel.

Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: March 9, 2009.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. E9-5416 Filed 3-10-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY CHIN, a/k/a Dallas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-361-A, CA-98-1442-AM) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin David Miller, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. RebecaHidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry Chin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) and motion filed 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Chin , Nos. CR-94-361-A; CA-98-1442-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 1998). 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
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

107)IV-C-73 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:56 AM Sheet 107 of 232 
P.2 

yf^b. 

T21- c - 7 3 

1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

r p - i 7 1933 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Cass Ballenger 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Ballenger: 

Thank you for passing along the comments of your 

constituents concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard 

refueling emission controls. Be assured that these comments 

will be considered in the next phase of our rulemaking process. 

We will also be placing them in the public docket for the 

rulemaking. 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

'•C::;AL SIGNED BY 01.' 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11
No. 09-9778.

#### Byron Lawrence, Petitioner v. Joseph J. Piazza, et al.

560 U.S. 912, 130 S. Ct. 3293,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1197,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4044.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
tesco1023.htm


Exhibit 10.23












SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


WHEREAS, Jeffrey L. Foster (“Executive”) and Tesco Corporation entered into the Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2007 and as amended on March 15, 2009 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, Section 7(i)(v) of the Agreement has an error with respect to the timing of payment and no amount is vested thereunder and the parties desire to amend Section 7(f) of the Agreement to add requirements under new guidance from the Internal Revenue Service;


 


NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
Section 7(f) shall be amended to add the following at the end thereof:







 


“Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the extent any amounts payable under Sections 7(c), (d) or (e) are deferred compensation and not otherwise exempt from the requirements of Code Section 409A, no payment will be paid or commence to be paid hereunder until the date which is the 60th day after the Date of Termination.”


 



	
2.  

	
Section 7(i)(v) shall be amended so that the word “second” shall be replaced with the word “first” in each place in which it occurs.







 


This Second Amendment may be executed by portable document format (pdf) or facsimile signature which signature shall be binding on the parties hereto.


 


WHEREAS, the parties have executed this Second Amendment effective as of December 31, 2010.


 


EXECUTIVE                                                                                     TESCO CORPORATION







JEFFREY L. FOSTER












/s/ Jeffrey L. Foster                                                      By: /s/ Julio M. Quintana                                                      


Jeffrey L. Foster                                                                                     Julio M. Quintana


President and CEO






  





1
STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel BARKER

No. 413P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Barker, Daniel.

Ryan Frank Haigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 20th of November 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of November 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Geoffrey S. M. Hedrick                       
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|Geoffrey S. M. Hedrick                           
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|December 16, 2003                                
|                                                 
|/s/ James J. Reilly                              
|                                                 
|James J. Reilly                                  
|Chief Financial Officer                          
|December 16, 2003
Exhibit
13.1




CERTIFICATION
  Under
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
  In
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Copernic Inc.
(the “Company”) do hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge,
that:
  (1)     The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 of the Company
(“Form 20-F”) 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date:   March
      27, 2009
              By:  s/s
      Marc Ferland
                Marc
      Ferland
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer and Acting
CFO
  Date:   March
      27, 2009
              By:  s/s
      Claire Castonguay
                Claire
      Castonguay
                Vice
      President, Finance and Controller
Robert L. HARRISON, Employee, Petitioner, v. OWEN STEEL COMPANY, INC., Employer, and Old Republic Insurance Company c/o Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Carrier, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000769 Opinion No. 27896

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 13, 2019 Filed June 19, 2019

Frank Anthony Barton, of West Columbia, for Petitioner.

Helen F. Hiser, of Mount Pleasant, and Jason Wendell Lockhart, of Columbia, both of McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:

**183We granted Robert L. Harrison's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the appellate panel of the workers' compensation commission.1 We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

**DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.**

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW, JJ., and Acting Justice D. Garrison Hill, concur.

1

*Harrison v. Owen Steel Co., Inc.* , 422 S.C. 132, 810 S.E.2d 433 (Ct. App. 2018).
ex10_10.htm











EXHIBIT 10.10




 


Amendment No. 4 to that certain Convertible Note dated as of July 29, 2004 in the principal sum of $100,000, as amended by Amendment 1 dated March 27, 2008, Amendment 2 dated February 12, 2009, and Amendment 3 dated March 5, 2010 (“Note”).







For good and valuable consideration, the parties to the Note amend the Note to extend the First Maturity Date and the Final Maturity date to January 1, 2012 so that the entire Principal Sum is due and payable on January 1, 2012.







Except as set forth above, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.







Dated: March 1, 2011








	
Colonial Commercial Corp

	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ William Pagano

	  	
/s/ Rita Folger


	  	
Name:

	
William Pagano, Chief  Executive Officer

	  	
Rita Folger
No. 09-9275.

#### Gregory Charles Krug, Petitioner v. John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, et al.

559 U.S. 1045, 130 S. Ct. 2079,

176 L. Ed. 2d 430,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2882.

March 29, 2010.

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

Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 309 Fed. Appx. 423.