alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6985** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:99

- cr - 00012

- RLV

- 6; 5:14

- cv - 00094

- RLV )

Submitted : August 1, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Floyd Junior Powell, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Assistant United States Attorney, Craig Darren Randal l , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlo tte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Floyd Junior Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s orde r tre ating his motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 ( 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate o f appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on pro cedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Powell 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1
**Certification**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BowaterIncorporated (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Dated: November 9, 2004 /s/ Arnold M. Nemirow   Name: Arnold M. Nemirow Title: Chief Executive Officer
     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separatedisclosure document.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2436

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the targeted area

limitation on the expense deduction for environmental remediation costs

and to extend the termination date of such deduction.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 2000

Mr. ABRAHAM 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 targeted area limitation on the expense deduction

for environmental remediation costs and to extend the

termination date of such deduction.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO EXPENSING OF ENVIRON4 MENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

5 (a) EXPENSING NOT LIMITED TO SITES IN TAR6 GETED AREAS.—Subsection (c) of section 198 of the In7 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as fol8 lows:
2

•S 2436 IS

1 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED CONTAMINATED SITE.—For pur2 poses of this section—

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified con4 taminated site’ means any area—

5 ‘‘(A) which is held by the taxpayer for use

6 in a trade or business or for the production of

7 income, or which is property described in sec8 tion 1221(a)(1) in the hands of the taxpayer,

9 and

10 ‘‘(B) at or on which there has been a re11 lease (or threat of release) or disposal of any

12 hazardous substance.

13 ‘‘(2) NATIONAL PRIORITIES LISTED SITES NOT

14 INCLUDED.—Such term shall not include any site

15 which is on, or proposed for, the national priorities

16 list under section 105(a)(8)(B) of the Comprehen17 sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

18 Liability Act of 1980 (as in effect on the date of the

19 enactment of this section).

20 ‘‘(3) TAXPAYER MUST RECEIVE STATEMENT

21 FROM STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY.—An area

22 shall be treated as a qualified contaminated site with

23 respect to expenditures paid or incurred during any

24 taxable year only if the taxpayer receives a state25 ment from the appropriate agency of the State in
3

•S 2436 IS

1 which such area is located that such area meets the

2 requirement of paragraph (1)(B).

3 ‘‘(4) APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY.—For pur4 poses of paragraph (2), the chief executive officer of

5 each State may, in consultation with the Adminis6 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency, des7 ignate the appropriate State environmental agency

8 within 60 days of the date of the enactment of this

9 section. If the chief executive officer of a State has

10 not designated an appropriate environmental agency

11 within such 60-day period, the appropriate environ12 mental agency for such State shall be designated by

13 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

14 Agency.’’

15 (b) EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE.—Sub16 section (h) of section 198 of such Code is amended by

17 striking ‘‘December 31, 2001’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30,

18 2004’’.

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

20 this section shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred

21 after December 31, 2000.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,419
<INVENTORY>                                     97,013
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               270,819
<PP&E>                                          13,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,454
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           321
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,959
<SALES>                                        473,526
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               480,360
<CGS>                                          297,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,429
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,502
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,256
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,246
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Fifth Amendment to Citrix Systems, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO 
 CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. 
 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS,
Citrix Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) desires to amend the Citrix Systems, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (as amended and in effect, the “Plan”) to (i) increase the aggregate number of shares authorized for issuance under
the Plan by 5,600,000 shares of common stock, par value $.001 per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”), and (ii) increase the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to restricted stock, restricted stock
units, performance units or stock grants by 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Plan Amendment”); and; 
 WHEREAS, on
April 14, 2009, subject to stockholder approval, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the Plan Amendment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in
accordance with Section 15 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph thereof in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof: 

 “At no time shall the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to or subject to outstanding Awards granted under the Plan (including
pursuant to Incentive Options), nor the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to Incentive Options, exceed 32,100,000 shares of Stock; subject, however, to the provisions of Section 8 of the Plan. In addition to the foregoing, at no time
shall the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Performance Units or Stock Grants exceed 4,000,000 shares of Stock; subject, however, to the provisions of Section 8 of the Plan.” 

 

	 	2.	The Plan Amendment shall be effective upon approval of the stockholders of the Company at the 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. If the Plan Amendment is not so approved at such
meeting, then the amendment to the Plan set forth herein shall be void ab initio. 

  

	 	3.	Except herein above provided, the Plan is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved in all respects.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________ __ ________ NO. 09
- 14
- 00 370
- CR

_________ __ _______
IN RE BRITTANY L. FRANKLIN

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________ __________________________ Relator Brittany L. Franklin filed a petition for writ of mandamus, in which she asks this Court to compel the district clerk to transmit a copy of Franklin’s application for writ of habe as corpus, any answer filed, and a certificate “reciting the date upon which that finding was made” to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The district clerk is not a person against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus other than to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). Franklin has not shown that issuance of a writ against the district clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Pennington , No. 09

- 08

- 370 CV, 2008 WL 4425521, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Oc t. 2, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).2 Franklin has not demonstrated that she is entitled to mandamus relief from this Court. See State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist. , 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Accordingly, we den y relief on the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on September 23, 2014 Opinion Delivered September 24, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,388
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,021
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,368
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          14,234
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,056
<LOANS>                                        119,502
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,560
<DEPOSITS>                                     150,722
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,216
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,622
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 172,560
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,741
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,355
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,096
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,711
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,385
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (7)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,225
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,225
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,389
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .089
<LOANS-NON>                                        142
<LOANS-PAST>                                       940
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    48
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,057
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,246
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       48
<RECOVERIES>                                       207
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,405
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,405
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
|   | (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 4, 2011 | /s/ James R. Baumgardner                    |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                         | James R. BaumgardnerChief Executive Officer |
|                         |                                        |
|                         | /s/ Jeffrey R. Feeler                       |
|                         | Jeffrey R. FeelerChief Financial Officer    |

----
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. 08-60108

Summary Calendar

JULIO CESAR DIAZ-SAENZ,

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. A37 999 602

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Cesar Diaz-Saenz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court

to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) order finding him removable,

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), and ineligible for cancellation of removal,

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3), because he had committed an aggravated

felony. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 12, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60108

2

Diaz-Saenz abandons by failing to brief any challenge to the determination

that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), based on his controlled

substance violations. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

Diaz-Saenz, who was convicted in November 2001 in state court for

possession of marijuana and who has a prior state court drug conviction,

contends that the BIA erred by treating his 2001 conviction as equivalent to an

aggravated felony under the recidivist provisions of the Controlled Substances

Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The BIA correctly determined that Diaz-Saenz had

committed an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. See

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263, 266-68 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for

cert. filed (July 15, 2009) (No. 09-60). Accordingly, the petition for review is

DENIED.
# United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art

**

----

The United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art is available online through the Government Publishing Office or it may be available at a federal depository library in your state.

        -  Virtual Reference Desk 
        -  Statistics & Lists 
        -  Bibliographies 
        -  How To... 
        -  Glossary 
        -  Senate Organization 
        -  The Constitution 
        -  Procurement 
        -  Employment & Internships 
        -            -  Senate Employment Office 
          -  Sergeant at Arms 
          -  Secretary of the Senate 
        -  Visiting
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2483

To provide for the eligibility of small business concerns owned and controlled

by women for assistance under the mentor-protege program of the Department of Defense.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 27, 2000

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To provide for the eligibility of small business concerns

owned and controlled by women for assistance under

the mentor-protege program of the Department of Defense.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2483 IS

1 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

2 OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY WOMEN FOR

3 ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MENTOR-PROTEGE

4 PROGRAM.

5 Section 831(m)(2) of the National Defense Author6 ization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510;

7 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

9 (C);

10 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub11 paragraph (D) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

12 (3) by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(E) a small business concern owned and

14 controlled by women, as defined in section

15 8(d)(3)(D) of the Small Business Act (15

16 U.S.C. 637(d)(3)(D)).’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7728

RICHARD W. BELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.
FRANIS, Sheriff; COVENANT, Captain; SERGEANT DOLE; VANCE, Sheriff Deputy,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00650-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 21, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard W. Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Richard W. Bell appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action as frivolous. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Bell v. Franis , No. 1:09-cv-00650-JCC-IDD (E.D. Va.
Sept. 3, 2009). 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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28295-28296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12106]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,144]


Cummins Filtration, Including On-Site Leased Workers From 
Manpower and Spherion Staffing, Including On-Site Workers From 
Hagemeyer North America, Lake Mills, IA; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on October 15, 2009, applicable to workers of Cummins Filtration, 
including on-site leased workers from Manpower, Lake Mills, Iowa. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2009 (74 
FR 65798).
    At the request of the petitioners, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of oil and fuel filters, Stratpore media and other 
metal components for engines.
    New information shows that workers from Hagemeyer North America 
were employed on-site at the Lake Mills, Iowa location of Cummins 
Filtration to provide procurement and inventory management services for 
the subject firm. Information also shows that workers leased from 
Spherion Staffing were employed on-site at the Lake Mills, Iowa 
location of Cummins Filtration. The Department has determined that 
workers from Spherion Staffing were sufficiently under the control of 
the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers from

[[Page 28296]]

Hagemeyer North America and leased workers from Spherion Staffing 
working on-site at the Lake Mills, Iowa location of Cummins Filtration.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,144 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Cummins Filtration, including on-site leased 
workers from Manpower and Spherion Staffing and including on-site 
workers from Hagemeyer North America, Lake Mills, Iowa, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 
26, 2008 through October 15, 2011, and all workers in the group 
threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date 
of certification through two years from the date of certification, 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 
Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of May, 2010.
 Elliott S. Kushner
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-12106 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P