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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALMA YOUNG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, Secretary Dan

Glickman,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

No. 98-1802

JOHN DUNMORE, Deputy Director of

Division Director Economic

Research Service, USDA; SARA

MAZIE, Associate Division Director,

U.S. Department of Agriculture;

RICHARD LONG, Deputy Director to

the Associate Director, Economic

Research Service, USDA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CA-96-2818-PJM)

Submitted: March 23, 1999

Decided: April 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Christina Northern, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A.

Battaglia, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields, Assistant United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alma Young appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in this

employment discrimination action. She alleged that the USDA discriminated against her on the basis of her race in failing to promote

her and in failing to provide sufficient training to qualify her for promotion. She claims a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

as amended. In addition, Young alleges First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.

Beard Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Thompson Plastics, Inc., 152 F.3d

313, 315 (4th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate where the

evidence establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).

We conclude that the district court correctly found no issues of

material fact precluding entry of summary judgment for USDA.

Young did not establish a prima facie case supporting her Title VII

claim, either by direct proof or inference. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

 2
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). We perceive no merit in her

First and Fourteenth Amendment allegations. Therefore, we affirm

the judgment of the district court. 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

 3
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 2.14

                        [Unofficial English Translation]

(LOGO) L E U M I

MARCH 31, 2009

For the attention of:
Tefron Ltd. (hereinafter: the "COMPANY")

Dear Sir/ Madam,

                     RE: COVENANT DOCUMENT DATED MAY 7, 2006
                     (HEREINAFTER: "THE COVENANT DOCUMENT")

     At your request, we wish to confirm that if the Company's data, which shall
     be published in the Company's financial statements as of December 31, 2008
     (hereinafter: "THE DETERMINING REPORTS") shall show the Company's
     non-compliance with the financial covenants as set forth in section 1 (c)
     of the Covenant Document (hereinafter: "THE FINANCIAL COVENANTS"), we shall
     not exercise our right to declare your debts and obligations to us to be
     immediately due and payable.

     This approval of ours is restricted solely to the cause as set forth above
     and it shall not derogate from our right to declare your debts and
     obligations to us in respect of any other cause, to be immediately due and
     payable.

     For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby clarified that our waiver, as set
     forth above, is being made on a one-time basis, and it relates solely to
     the Determining Reports; Our said consent shall not be deemed to be a
     waiver of your commitment to comply with the Financial Covenants after the
     date of the Determining Reports, that is to say, with regard to the
     financial statements as of March 31, 2009 and thereafter, and it shall not
     be construed as being an amendment of the Covenant Document, and all of
     your covenants as set forth in the Covenant Document shall remain in full
     force and effect.

     It is also clarified that this consent of ours shall not derogate from our
     rights in your regard pursuant to any document which you have signed and/or
     shall sign in our regard, or pursuant to any law.

     The validity of this letter is contingent upon the satisfaction of the
     following cumulative conditions:

     1.   That you obtain similar consent from any entity to which
          non-compliance with the said Financial Covenants confers a right to
          the immediate payment of your debts and obligations thereto, including
          from Bank Hapoalim Ltd. and Israel Discount Bank Ltd.

     2.   Your signing of a Covenant Document to us, attached as an appendix
          hereto.

     3.   By and not later than March 31, 2009, you shall pay to us US$ 16,500
          (sixteen thousand five hundred US dollars) in respect of this letter,
          as agreed with you, and you shall send us a copy of this letter,
          signed by you, at the foot of the letter.
```

```

Sincerely yours,

Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd.

/s/ Tamar Dominitz
-----------------------
Stamped: TAMAR DOMINITZ
         4590

/s/ A. Shemesh
-----------------------
Stamped: A. SHEMESH
         3503

WE CONSENT TO THE FOREGOING.
/s/ Eran Rotem
-----------------------
Customer's Signature
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6800

NORMAN A. BRYSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTHA A. WANNAMAKER, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-2831-2-19) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman A. Bryson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, ChiefDeputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Norman A. Bryson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) and denying his motion to alter or amend. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. This was Bryson’s second § 2254 petition, and he did not obtain permission from this Court to file the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Further, the record belies Bryson’s claim that his first petition was not decided on the merits. Finally, Bryson cannot now challenge the decision in the prior § 2254 petition. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 7, 2018

No. 04-17-00596-CV

REGENT CARE CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO, L.P.,

Appellant

v.

Robert H. DETRICK and Carolyn Dart Detrick,

Appellees

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-19462

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 1, 2018, appellees filed an unopposed motion requesting that we reschedule 

oral argument in this appeal. We GRANT appellees’ motion. Oral argument in this appeal is 

rescheduled for Tuesday, October 2, 2018, at 1:30 PM.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________
NO

. 09

- 1 3

- 00 064

- C R



### ____________________

ADENI K K E LAKENYA CANTY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No

. 09

- 07072

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Adenikke Lakenya Canty pleaded guilty , under a plea agreement, to arson.

The trial court placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision. She

violated the terms and conditions of community supervision set by the court. The

State filed a motion to revoke

. The trial court revoked the community supervision,

found her guilt y of arson, and sentenced her to six years in prison. Canty argues the

trial court abused its discretion by also assessing a $1,000 fine against her in the

written judgment adjudicating guilt when there was no pronouncement of the fine2 in the oral rendition of judgment at the revocation and adjudication hearing. See

Taylor v. State

, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The State concedes

error , and “recommends modification of the second page of the Judgment

Adjudicating Guilt deleting the One Thousand ($1

, 000.00) fine notation found on

the second page of the Judgment.”

T he trial court se n tenced Canty to six years in prison and did not assess a

fine. The first page of the written judgment reflects t he defendant’s punishment as

six years in prison with no amount indicated in the fine column. The second page

of the judgment notes a fine of $1,000. To the extent there is a variance between

the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the written judgment, the oral

pronouncement controls. Id

. at 500

- 02 (affirming court of appeal’s modification of

judgment to remove fine assess ed in the written judgment, but not orally

pronounced); Ex parte Madding , 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). As

req uested by appellant and recommended by the State, we modify the written

judgment to delete the reference to the $1,000 fine on the second page

. The

judgment is affirmed as modified

.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

.

________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice3 Submitted on May 20, 2013 Opinion Delivered May 29, 2013
D o Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND AS OF
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000919604
<NAME> KERATOPLANETES CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,388
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1274
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,483)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 FORM 10Q OF SCHULLER INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          85,697
<SECURITIES>                                     2,689
<RECEIVABLES>                                  286,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,421
<INVENTORY>                                    111,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               504,343
<PP&E>                                       1,404,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                 616,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,623,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          321,370
<BONDS>                                        418,147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,623,926
<SALES>                                      1,130,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,130,490
<CGS>                                          806,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  806,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,509
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                156,054
<INCOME-TAX>                                    67,230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,824
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 55 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 55

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual 
                        alternative minimum tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mr. Baucus (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. 
Crapo) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                      to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual 
                        alternative minimum tax.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Individual Alternative Minimum Tax 
Repeal Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 55(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to alternative minimum tax imposed) is amended by adding at 
the end the following new flush sentence:
``For purposes of this title, the tentative minimum tax on any taxpayer 
other than a corporation for any taxable year beginning after December 
31, 2006, shall be zero.''.
    (b) Modification of Limitation on Use of Credit for Prior Year 
Minimum Tax Liability.--Subsection (c) of section 53 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for prior year minimum tax 
liability) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Limitation.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        credit allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
        shall not exceed the excess (if any) of--
                    ``(A) the regular tax liability of the taxpayer for 
                such taxable year reduced by the sum of the credits 
                allowable under subparts A, B, D, E, and F of this 
                part, over
                    ``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable 
                year.
            ``(2) Taxable years beginning after 2006.--In the case of 
        any taxable year beginning after 2006, the credit allowable 
        under subsection (a) to a taxpayer other than a corporation for 
        any taxable year shall not exceed 90 percent of the regular tax 
        liability of the taxpayer for such taxable year reduced by the 
        sum of the credits allowable under subparts A, B, D, E, and F 
        of this part.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
XUTVAE

kU£>T\N J^kb RECEIVED

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

DEC 112015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

M. FILED IN

THE ^KXt DV T^k^ C°URT0FCR!M^appeals

l^pcWte. CtC .11 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Vrom kppe&i Ho. Ob-m-blOSfc-CjR,

TriedCourV Cous>e- V\o. V- l*&*<\tt-H

T)cd\Ci£j Courd\| jTexoj£>

er tcwA4\\es> *Y\*s> racsftoa. £oc ax\. exften»lc*L (SCLb) dcx\iV\n

X

Ctour-V U&.A esT OcAYo^> Co\jjrd\{ ^Aexc^ c£Vru^ e&^ejcisc a9

-\-
xnufde* Ycl Cause* f-VVa5<ttV-W ,s\>i\tA SWfc Ctf TClNb n&.fcNc*appe<^ *\n* ^TKACT c*l*TM& akSSSSl .l^^L-

%a£9\ctn£d os> mM^\ed QJul^cuoa^AcA^Hesutec-1, Qjb<&

H

TVxe oc«*i d^Vvc^-fcc Vdvnc^ W*W«* \K*c*eW o*n, Wu> *JW*u ^rf^ pdtW.oner W> ^fC- c«o\ edc^ e*Yeus\&CL pc\(* -foA^ ve<u^ ^r

c£ *W e^rA tf append \a c^.uW Vu5 cn^un^H^

*^^ ^^ le^ representee \rt-Wivb modYer .Wvb gAYc^cl- e-s/ oa -Wie appecA,CcdYLervae- CYcrfe, fcerainacd, h^s informed

9ei\V\ou£.v -VY\c& 2>Vie- ioAY ae^ ceupteSen^ VuraQrL-\YLe^9e3f\V\ov\

NMWEWtVbWL ,Pe^vVvouex pvaxjs \\i\fb cous\ c^rcM \Yu<5 aioWo •

a and expend -YYul deadUae-£oc £Am^Vie~?eir\Vi(tfLJ?eM> T>

'\*cre.\\c*\os\| ReMieuo \a case*£-l^bb^U-V\ \o taase.no.

ovm-bib^fc-cjfc

PtdvV\c>u£r tpro »>eCc£S\«dd llniAj, OtfcA VN\at&H

TeaniL£>£>ee. Co\on^| ,°A^xciS) 75&&H

-a-
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q/A
Amendment No. 1


(Mark One)
[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
For the Quarterly period ended June 30, 1996    OR
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
For the transition period from _________________ to ______________________.

Commission File Number   0-27238

WESTERN PACIFIC AIRLINES, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
            Delaware                              86-0758778
  (State or other jurisdiction                 (I.R.S. employer
of incorporation or organization)            identification number)
  
2864 South Circle Drive, Suite 1100  
Colorado Springs, Colorado                         80906
(Address of principal executive offices)         (Zip code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (719) 579-7737

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports 
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the 
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to 
such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X]    No[ ]

As of  August 1, 1996 there were 13,353,150 shares of Common Stock of the 
registrant issued and outstanding.

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT  INDEX
 
Exhibit No.  Description of Exhibit
-----------  -----------------------
 10.63       -- Sublease agreement dated March 18, 1996 between Registrant and
                TACA International Airlines, S.A.
 10.64       -- Aircraft Lease Agreement dated May 31, 1996 between Registrant 
                and International Lease Finance Corporation.
* 10.65      -- Wet Lease Agreement dated May 28, 1996 between the Registrant 
                and Express One.
 27          -- Financial Data Schedule
-----------------------------
 (b) No reports on Form 8-K were filed during the quarter ended June 30, 1996.
* Portions of this document have been redacted and filed separately with 
the Commission as part of a request by the Company for confidential treatment 
pursuant to Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


Signatures
----------
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the 
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the 
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.  
        
 WESTERN PACIFIC AIRLINES, INC.
        
 By: /s/  EDWARD R. BEAUVAIS    
     ----------------------- 
 Edward R. Beauvais
 Chairman, President and Chief  Executive Officer

 Date:   October 30, 1996. 

 By: /s/  MARTIN J. DUGAN, JR. 
     -------------------------
 Martin J. Dugan, Jr.
 Vice-President and Chief  Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
 
 Date:   October 30, 1996.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Aug. 25, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-13954

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-80025-CR-KAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

AVA MONTALVO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 25, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David J. Joffe, appointed counsel for Ava Montalvo, has filed a motion to
2

withdraw on appeal supported by a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d. 493 (1967). Our independent review of the record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of

merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Montalvo’s convictions

and sentences are AFFIRMED.