alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JO-ANN STORES, INC.

5555 DARROW ROAD

HUDSON, OHIO 44236




April 5, 2010



Darrell Webb


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.


5555 Darrow Road


Hudson, Ohio 44236



Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement



Dear Darrell:



Reference is made to your current employment agreement dated March 16, 2009 (the “Employment
Agreement”). The purpose of this letter is to confirm our agreement to amend the Employment
Agreement as set forth in this letter.




	 	1.	 	Recognizing your relinquishment of the “President” title early this year, the first
sentence of section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended to read: “Duties.
Subject to Section 2(e) below, the Executive shall be employed by the Company as Chief
Executive Officer, and subject to Section 2(e) below, the Executive shall continue to
serve as Chairman of the Board.”






	 	2.	 	Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is amended so that the Term of the Agreement
will now end on August 1, 2012.





In all other respects, the Employment Agreement remains in effect in accordance with its original
terms.



Sincerely,



/s/ Scott Cowen

Scott Cowen

Lead Director




Agreed to this 5th day of April, 2010:



/s/ Darrell Webb


Darrell Webb
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,264,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  605,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                    42,883
<INVENTORY>                                    780,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,747,581
<PP&E>                                         371,139
<DEPRECIATION>                               (146,736)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,971,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          723,237
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,124
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,239,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,971,984
<SALES>                                      1,808,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,808,643
<CGS>                                          935,003
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  935,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               522,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                365,575
<INCOME-TAX>                                   124,324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            241,251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   241,251
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        




</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 03-0560(E)

ROBERT E. LOHNES III, APPELLANT,

V.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD and HAGEL, Judges.

O R D E R

Veteran Robert E. Lohnes III applies through counsel for an award of attorney fees and

expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). For the reasons set

forth below, the Court will deny the EAJA application.

Mr. Lohnes appealed a January 21, 2003, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that

denied entitlement to two 10% disability ratings for bilateral tinnitus. Relying on Smith v.

Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 63 (2005), the Court reversed the Board's decision to the extent that it

concluded that bilateral tinnitus could not qualify for separate 10% disability ratings, one for each

ear. The Secretary did not appeal that decision, and the mandate of the Court entered in due course.

On July 19, 2005, Mr. Lohnes filed his EAJA application.

An EAJA application may be granted when the appellant is a prevailing party and the

Secretary's position was not substantially justified. If either the appellant is not a prevailing party

or the Secretary's position was substantially justified, the Court must deny the application. See, e.g.,

Vahey v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 208, 210-12 (2006) (EAJA application denied without discussion

of substantial justification where Court found appellant was not a prevailing party); Bonny v.

Principi, 18 Vet.App. 218, 221-22 (2004) (EAJA application denied where Secretary conceded that

appellant was a prevailing party but Court found Secretary was substantially justified). Here,

although Mr. Lohnes asserts, and the Secretary does not dispute, that Mr. Lohnes is a prevailing

party, the Court must deny the application because the Secretary's position was substantially

justified. See Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that Secretary's

interpretation of his own regulations was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with regulations), cert.

denied, __ U.S. __, 75 U.S.L.W. 3385 (Jan. 22, 2007).

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the July 19, 2005, application for attorney fees and expenses is DENIED.

DATED: February 8, 2007 PER CURIAM.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 130292 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130292 COA: 265733 Oakland CC: 2004-198894-FC MACK WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH
, J., would grant leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal fo r the reasons stated in her dissenting statement in People v Conway (Docket No. 129431), ___ Mich ___ (2006).

d0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 5, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5826 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5826

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of 
   active duty for purposes of the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 
   Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs to include certain 
                     service in the National Guard.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2010

Mr. Altmire (for himself and Mr. Platts) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of 
   active duty for purposes of the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 
   Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs to include certain 
                     service in the National Guard.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ACTIVE DUTY FOR PURPOSES OF POST-
              9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS TO INCLUDE SERVICE IN NATIONAL GUARD FOR 
              CERTAIN PURPOSES.

    Section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) In the case of a member of the Army National 
                Guard of the United States or Air National Guard of the 
                United States, in addition to service described in 
                subparagraph (B), full-time service--
                            ``(i) in the National Guard of a State for 
                        the purpose of organizing, administering, 
                        recruiting, instructing, or training the 
                        National Guard; or
                            ``(ii) in the National Guard under section 
                        502(f) of title 32 when authorized by the 
                        President or Secretary of Defense for the 
                        purpose of responding to a national emergency 
                        declared by the President and supported by 
                        Federal funds.''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6374

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JESUS RAMIREZ

- BARRERA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00477

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : August 27, 2021 Decided: September 9, 2021

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jesus Ramirez

- Barrera, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jesus Ramirez

- Barrera , a federal p risoner, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194,
5239. Upon review of the recor d, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181 , 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021)

. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Ramirez

- Barrera’s motion to appoint counsel. 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00806

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.G., A.G., O.M.G., AND J.P.M, CHILDREN

From the 73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- PA

- 02090

Honorable Richard Garcia , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’ s parental rights, which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R.

J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2. The notice of appeal was filed on November 28, 2022.

Appellant is represented on appeal by appointed counsel, Mr. Shawn Sheffield. Appellant’s brief originally was due to be filed on January 12, 2023. Appellant has been granted one extension, until January 30, 2023. On January 30, 2023, Mr. Sheffield filed a motion requesting an extension until February 7, 202 3.

The motion is GRANTED, and Mr. Sheffield is ORDERED to file appellant’s brief no later than February 7, 2023

. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

WILL BE DISFAVORED

.

It is so ORDERED February 1 , 202 3

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
Exhibit 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Gary  Musselman,  President,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Chief Financial
Officer certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pacel Corporation;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   Board  of  Directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a. all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b. any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and I have  indicated  in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

August 19, 2004

/s/ Gary Musselman
-------------------------------
Gary Musselman, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial officer
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancesset forth inLocalRule

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-20895

Summary Calendar

LES L. FOUTCH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY, ET AL.,

 Defendants,

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CA H 93-1979)

March 26, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
47.5.4.

2

Les L. Foutch appeals the judgment after a bench trial rejecting his claims against

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breaching its contract with Star of Hope, Foutch’s

employer, which, according to Foutch, makes the insurer liable for both compensatory and

punitive damages. On the facts as found, and the authorities cited and analysis made by the

district court in its thorough and comprehensive Memorandum Opinion rendered on

October 27, 1994 and entered October 31, 1994, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(2)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John S. Heneghan, Chief Financial Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
    ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
    78m or 78o(d)); and

(3) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/John S. Heneghan
----------------------------

John S. Heneghan
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR F. JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-362) Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: November 22, 2006 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur F. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Arthur F. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
#### Joseph FIELDS, III, Appellant, v. Douglas L. WEBER, Individually and in his official capacity as Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary; Daryl Slykhuis, Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, Appellees.

No. 10-3489.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 10, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 18, 2011.

Joseph Fields, III, Sioux Falls, SD, pro se.

James Ellis Moore, Michele Ann Mun-son, Woods & Fuller, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellees.

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Fields appeals from the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by the District Court1 in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful de novo review, *see Johnson v. Blaukat,*453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006), we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated in the District Court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 13-11

IN RE: RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

O R D E R

Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a) and consistent with 28 U.S.C.

§ 2071(b), the Court has adopted revisions to its Rules of Practice and Procedure. A proposed

revision was published for public comment by MISC. NO. 03-11 (Feb. 10, 2011). The Court has

benefitted from public comment and from the views of its Rules Advisory Committee. Accordingly,

it is

ORDERED that the attached revision of the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure is

hereby published and will be effective on September 15, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that the attached E-Rules, first published as Interim E-Rules in MISC.NO.08-08,

(Oct. 3, 2008), are no longer interim.

DATED: August 16, 2011 FOR THE COURT:

/s/Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court

Attachments

Rules of Practice and Procedure (effective September 15, 2011)

E-Rules
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10298]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 731-TA-703 and 705 (Review)]


Furfuryl Alcohol From China and Thailand

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission determines, 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 
furfuryl alcohol from China and Thailand would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 
25363) and determined on August 3, 2000, that it would conduct full 
reviews (65 FR 50003, August 16, 2000). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on November 6, 2000 
(65 FR 66559). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on March 1, 
2001, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to 
appear in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to 
the Secretary of Commerce on April 20, 2001. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3412 (April 2001), 
entitled Furfuryl Alcohol From China and Thailand: Investigations Nos. 
731-TA-703 and 705 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: April 20, 2001.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10298 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P