alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6546

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODERICK BLACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-15) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick Black, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court construed Black’s § 3582(c) motion as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it without prejudice on the ground that it was successive. To the extent that Black’s motion could be construed as a § 2255 motion, relief would not be warranted because it would be successive. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Roderick Black appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice Black’s motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). Black contends that he is entitled to a reduction in sentence based upon Amendments 505 and 516 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the upper limit of the Drug Quantity Table and became effective November 1, 1995. This claim was raised and rejected in Black’s earlier § 3582 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *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
Sharon Beddingfield COOKE v. Daryl Robert COOKE.

No. 249P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

George Hyler, Jr., Robert J. Lopez, Asheville, for Daryl Robert Cooke.

Patrick U. Smathers, Canton, for Sharon Beddington Cooke.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of May 2005 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 6th day of October 2005."
STATE v. RHODES.

No. COA04-193.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Halifax (02crs102683)

Case reported without published opinion No error.
HomeOcean Facts

# What are brain corals?

## Brain corals, a **slow-growing** species of coral, often act as **foundations for reefs**.

Brain coral in the Dry Tortugas, Florida.

The cerebral-looking organisms known as brain corals do not have brains, but they can grow six feet tall and live for up to 900 years! Found in the Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans, brain corals display what is known as Meandroid tissue integration. This means that the polyps, which are the basic living unit of corals, are highly associated to one another. Their tissues are more closely connected than those of other corals and are not separated by skeletal structures. Many researchers think that the more integrated a coral's polyp tissue is, the more advanced the coral species.

Tissue integration is advantageous because the coral polyps are able to transfer molecules such as nutrients, hormones, and oxygen—making it easier for the brain coral colony to communicate. In some cases, however, this can lead to vulnerability, because if even one polyp gets sick, the pathogen can quickly spread to the rest of the colony. Some species of brain corals suffer mass mortalities due to diseases such as black band disease, white plague, and thermal bleaching. 

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - Are corals animals or plants?
          - What is a coral reef made of?
          - NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program
          - U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
          - NOAA Coral Reef Information System
          - Coral Health and Monitoring Program
          - Corals Tutorial

Did you know?

The ecological importance of brain corals is enormous. Brain corals grow very slowly, but they build super strong structures that act as the foundations of coral reefs. They are known as massive growth type corals. Massive corals take a long time to get big, but once they do, they offer outstanding protection to marine life and coastlines. Coral reefs can absorb up to 97 percent of the wave energy during storm events, and brain corals play an important role in that function. 

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4018** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JOHN ALVIN BLANTON, II , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00194

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : July 12, 2013 Decided: August 2, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpubli shed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Alvin Blanton, II, appeals his convictions and 184

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) (2006), and possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2006). Blanton’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appe al. Blanton was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief. Following

a careful review of the record, we affirm. Before accepting Blanton’s guilty plea, the dis trict court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Blanton’s plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 19 91). The court subsequently followed all necessary procedural steps in sentencing Blanton, properly calculating his Guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and the parties’ arguments , and providing an individualized
assessment based on the facts presented. See Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38 , 51 (2007). Blanton’s within

- Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he3 has not met his burden to rebut this presumption. United
States v. Montes

- Pined a , 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006)
. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Blanton , in writing , of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Blanton requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Blanton
. 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
HomeOcean Facts

# What is a guyot?

## A guyot, or seamount, is an undersea mountain.

A sonar image of a guyot, or seamount, in the Arctic. Using a multibeam echo sounder, NOAA scientists can map and produce a visualization from the data collected of the bottom of the ocean. 

Guyots support a wide range of organisms, such as this unidentified cnidarian that resembles a Venus flytrap, found on the slopes of the  Davidson Seamount.

Seamounts are formed by volcanic activity and can be taller than  10,000 feet. They can be  isolated or part of large mountain chains. The New England Seamount contains  more than 30 peaks that stretch 994 miles from the coast of  New England. 

Seamounts often have a high level of biological productivity  because they provide habitats for many species of plants and animals. Over 200  species of sea creatures have been observed at a single guyot in the New  England Seamount. Seamounts are great locations to discover new species because  each seamount houses different types of animals, including many that can only  be found in guyot habitats.

Seamounts are home to many commercial fish and are therefore  very beneficial to our economy. Seamounts are also important to the field of  medicine, as any number of undiscovered species may lead to new drugs or  medical treatments.

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - ** Mountains  in the Sea Exploration: No Escape
          - Davidson Seamount

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Marc J. Greene, President and CEO, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mountain Valley Bancshares, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 14, 2007              /s/ Marc J. Greene   Marc J. Greene   President and CEO  
17
56 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

MARYLAND

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$6.8 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

106,483

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County/City Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Anne Arundel 29,473 16,700 9,471

Prince George's 16,130 5,533 5,215

Montgomery 15,072 6,420 6,738

Hartford 14,031 1,763 11,289

St. Mary's 13,481 3,182 10,234

Frederick 4,578 1,819 2,459

Baltimore 3,466 85 551

Charles 3,299 935 2,280

Baltimore City 2,616 88 1,160

Allegany 1,656 1,372 ND

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 16%

Active Duty: 37%

Civilian: 47%

 40%

35%

16%

9%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

By Type

Service: 51%

Construction: 5%

Research and 

Development: 19%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 25%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

Lockheed Martin $2.0 B

Johns Hopkins University $911.4 M

Northrop Grumman $761.3 M

Kirlin Group $603.1 M

BAE Systems $471.8 M

Textron $442.0 M

Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation $395.9 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $310.9 M

Raytheon $237.4 M

M.C. Dean $222.7 M

$12.9 $12.2 $11.7

$10.3 $10.0

$11.5

$13.4

$12.0 30%

39%

8%

23%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 57

Montgomery

Frederick 

Charles

Baltimore City

Baltimore 

Harford 

Anne Arundel

Allegany 

Prince George's

St. Mary's

Montgomery

Frederick 

Charles

Baltimore City

Baltimore 

Harford 

Anne Arundel

Howard 

Prince George's

St. Mary's

Anne Arundel County

$1.7 B

St. Mary's County

$1.2 B

Harford County 

$1.2 B

Montgomery County

$995.2 M

Prince George's County

$830.1 M

Frederick County

$302.2 M

Charles County

$235.3 M

Baltimore City

$103.2 M

Allegany County

$63.6 M

Baltimore County

$58.2 M

(M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions B=billions) (M=millions)

Anne Arundel County

$2.4 B

Montgomery County

$2.3 B

St. Mary's County

$1.8 B

Howard County

$1.4 B

Baltimore County

$1.4 B

Harford County

$1.3 B

Prince George's County

$823.0 M

Frederick County

$539.2 M

Baltimore City

$527.4 M

Charles County

$343.6 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions B=billions)

#4

$20.2 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#4

5.2% OF STATE GDP

5.3%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$3,351

PER RESIDENT

#4

$13.4 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

#9

106,483 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#4

$6.8 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 MARYLAND

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
Amended and Restated 1998 Directors Stock Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO THE AVIALL, INC. 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 1998 DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN 
  
 This Amendment Number Four to the Aviall, Inc. Amended and Restated 1998 Directors Stock Plan (this “Amendment”), dated as of June 14, 2005 is made and entered into by Aviall, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”). Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Aviall, Inc. Amended and Restated 1998 Directors Stock Plan (the
“Plan”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, Section XI of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the
“Board”) may amend the Plan and the Board desired to obtain stockholder approval of the proposal to amend the Plan; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board submitted a proposal to amend the Plan to the Company’s stockholders at the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company’s stockholders approved the proposal to amend the Plan; 

 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section XI of the Plan, the Company
hereby amends the Plan as follows: 
  
 1. Paragraph C of Section IV of the Plan is
hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2006, by deleting the first sentence of said paragraph in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following: 
  
 C. Stock Grants—Each participating Director who has made an election to participate in the Plan pursuant to Paragraph B
of this Section IV shall be eligible to receive annually, on January 26th of each calendar year, or if such date in any year is not a New York Stock Exchange trading day, the next New York Stock Exchange trading day (the “Grant Date”),
following such election, in lieu of such Director’s annual retainer for service as a director of the Company (the “Annual Retainer”) a grant of Common Stock. 
  
 2. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment and Amendment Nos. One, Two and Three to the Aviall, Inc. Amended and Restated 1998
Directors Stock Plan, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	 AVIALL, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jeffrey J. Murphy


	 Name: Jeffrey J. Murphy

	Title: Senior Vice President, Law and Human Resources, General Counsel and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5243 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5243

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                 For the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR KUMI IIZUKA-BARCENA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Kumi Iizuka-Barcena shall 
be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Kumi Iizuka-Barcena enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Kumi Iizuka-Barcena, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5243

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                 For the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2014

No. 04-14-00515-CV

SPECIALTY SELECT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO, L.L.C. d/b/a Casa Rio 

Healthcare and Rehabilitation,

Appellant

v.

Adolfo R. JUIEL, Individually, Anna A. Juiel, Individually and on behalf of Isaac Juiel, 

individually, and as all Heirs of the Estate of Bertha Juiel, deceased and Lisa Ochoa, as 

Representative of the Estate of Nora Nieto, deceased,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-04911

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

This is an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order denying appellant’s motion to 

compel arbitration. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016 (West Supp. 2013). Appellant 

has filed a Motion to Stay Trial Court Proceedings pending resolution of this appeal. Although 

given the opportunity to respond, appellee did not do so. We GRANT the motion.

It is hereby ORDERED that all underlying proceedings in the lawsuit styled Adolfo R. 

Juiel, Individually and on Behalf of Isaac Juiel, Individually, and as all Heirs of The Estate of 

Bertha Juiel, Deceased; and Lisa Ochoa, as Representative of The Estate of Nora Nieto, 

Deceased v. Specialty Select Care of San Antonio, L.L.C. d/b/a Casa Rio Healthcare and 

Rehabilitation, and numbered 2014-CI-04911, pending in the 150th Judicial District Court of 

Bexar County, Texas, is STAYED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of July, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court