alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Wilmington City Railway Company, defendant below plaintiff in error, *vs.*Eva M. Cox, widow of Elmer E. Cox deceased, plaintiff below, defendant in error.

*Writ of Error—Affirmance of Judgment below.*

Upon writ of error, judgment of court below in the above stated case affirmed.

*(January*18, 1905.)

Nicholson, Chancellor, and Pennewill and Boyce, J. J., sitting.

*Walter H. Hayes*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Lynam*and *J. Harvey Whiteman*for defendant in error.

Supreme Court,

January Term, 1905.

Writ of Error (No. 4, June Term, 1903) to the Superior Court for New Castle County.

The decree of the Supreme Court, affirming the judgment of the Court below (4 *Pennewill,*162) in the above stated case was as follows:

“And now to wit, this eighteenth day of January A.D. 1905, this cause coming on to be heard and counsel for plaintiff in *2error and counsel for defendant in error being present and having been heard, it is thereupon considered by the Court that there is no error in the record and proceedings in this cause, and it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment below be and the cause is hereby in all things affirmed, and that the plaintiff in error pay the costs in this cause within three months or that an attachment issue. Said costs are now taxed at the sum of fifteen dollars and eighty-four cents.

J. R. Nicholson, *Chancellor.*

James Pennewill, *Judge.*

Wm. H. Boyce, *Judge.”*
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29365-29366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12562]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


Job Corps: Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 
Small Wind Turbine Installation at the Pine Ridge Job Corps Center 
Located at 15710 Highway 385, Chadron, NE 69337

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OSEC), Department of Labor.
    Recovery: This project will be wholly funded under the American 
Recovery and Reconstruction Act of 2009.

ACTION: Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Small Wind 
Turbine Installation at the Pine Ridge Job Corps Center located at 
15710 Highway 385, Chadron, NE 69337.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500-08) implementing procedural provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, 
Office of the Secretary (OSEC), in accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d), 
gives final notice of the proposed construction of a small wind turbine 
at the Pine Ridge Job Corps Center, and that this project will not have 
a significant adverse impact on the environment. In accordance with 29 
CFR 11.11(d) and 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2), a preliminary FONSI for the 
project was published in the April 5, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 
17161). No comments were received regarding the preliminary FONSI. OSEC 
has reviewed the conclusion of the environmental assessment (EA), and 
agrees with the finding of no significant impact. This notice serves as 
the Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Small Wind 
Turbine Installation at the Pine Ridge Job Corps Center located at 
15710 Highway 385, Chadron, NE 69337. The preliminary FONSI and the EA 
are adopted in final with no change.

DATES: Effective Date: These findings are effective as of May 25, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William A Dakshaw, Department of 
Labor, US Department of Labor, 200

[[Page 29366]]

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4460, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-
2867 (this is not a toll-free number).

    Dated: May 19, 2010.
Edna Primrose,
National Director of Job Corps.
[FR Doc. 2010-12562 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
# Emergency Medical Services Week, 2010 

Every day of the year, at all hours of the day and night, we rely on emergency medical services (EMS) professionals and volunteers for critical care in our homes, on our roads, in our hospitals, and wherever needs exist. EMS teams serve all Americans, standing ready to respond at a moment’s notice, and tirelessly enhancing our country’s preparedness and resilience. During Emergency Medical Services Week, we recommit to supporting all EMS providers, and we celebrate their selflessness and courageous contributions to our Nation.

Our EMS system includes a wide array of dedicated specialists, including emergency medical technicians, 9-1-1 dispatchers, paramedics, firefighters, law enforcement officials, educators, nurses, and physicians. From rural regions of our Nation to our busiest urban centers, EMS teams provide access to quality care when unforeseen illness, injury, or disaster strikes. The aid they administer cuts across various disciplines and often requires split-second decisions, essential to preventing disability or death among their fellow citizens.

My Administration is committed to supporting EMS providers and their important mission. The Affordable Care Act, which I signed into law this year, authorizes innovative new emergency care and trauma systems, and improves and expands EMS for children. It also prohibits insurance companies from imposing prior authorization requirements or increased cost-sharing for emergency services.

EMS providers spend long hours to further their medical education, train themselves on the latest life-saving techniques, and maintain vital emergency equipment, often choosing to do so on their own time and at their own expense. Many communities rely heavily, or even exclusively, on committed volunteers to provide out-of-hospital EMS. The role of EMS providers extends beyond performing services themselves, however. They also act as instructors to train ordinary Americans, because bystanders are often the first to arrive at the scene of a crisis. These heroic professionals, volunteers, and citizens form a network that has long supported our health care system, and their example is an inspiration to us all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 16 through May 22, 2010, as Emergency Medical Services Week. I encourage all Americans to observe this occasion with programs and activities to support their local EMS workers and to improve their own safety and preparedness skills.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 2010-12069

Billing code 3195-W0-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN E. BUCHANAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-sgw-3; 7:07-cv-00206-sgw-mfu)

Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Eugene Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Brownlee, United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Eugene Buchanan seeks to appeal 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 Buchanan has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Buchanan’s

motion for 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Footstar, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

     (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.

Date: September 27, 2005


By: /s/ Dale W. Hilpert
    ------------------------------------
    Dale W. Hilpert
    Chairman, President and
    Chief Executive Officer


By: /s/ Richard L. Robbins
    ------------------------------------
    Richard L. Robbins
    Senior Vice President of Financial
    Reporting and Control
    (Principal Financial Officer)
.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit 1 

Engagement Letter 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 1

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 2

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 3

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 4

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 5

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 6

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 7

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 8

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 9

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 10

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 11

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 12

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 13

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 14

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 15

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 16

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 17

of 21
.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit 2 

Indemnification Letter 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 18

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 19

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 20

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1994-2 Filed: 05/13/19 Entered: 05/13/19 16:58:18 Page 21

of 21
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50928 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JAVIER MEDALLIN-HERRERA, also known as Carmello Medallin Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-296-ALL
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Javier Medallin-Herrera raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50928

2 7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 13, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 13, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22I0156. ABM AVIATION, INC. d/b/a AIR SERV CORPORATION v. LOREE 

PRINCE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2020CV02460
---

Exhibit 32(b)





Certification of


Chief Financial Officer


Of 99¢ Only Stores





This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Report") for the period ended March 28, 2009 of 99¢ Only Stores (the "Issuer").





I, Robert Kautz, the Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer certify that to the best of my knowledge:





(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





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





Dated: June 10, 2009








By:   /s/ Robert Kautz


Name:   Robert Kautz


Title:     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# American Indian Senators

**

----

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Related Link 

Celebrating National Native American Heritage Month

### Senate Historical Office 

Information provided by the Senate Historical Office.

Questions about Senate History?Email a Senate historian.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4505

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REYES BARRERA ALACHAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-4506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REYES BARRERA ALACHAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00073-CMH-1; 1:18-cr00380-CMH-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2020 Decided: February 5, 2020
2

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John C. Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Katherine E. Rumbaugh, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Reyes Barrera Alachan (“Barrera”), seeks to appeal 

his sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 

500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2018), possession with 

intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2018),

and engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D) (2018). He argues that his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court incorrectly determined his criminal history 

category, improperly enhanced his Sentencing Guidelines sentence for possessing a 

firearm in connection with another felony, and improperly imposed a Guidelines 

enhancement in violation of his right to due process, citing United States v. Davis, 139 S. 

Ct. 2319 (2019) (holding that residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague). 

The Government contends that the appeals are barred by Barrera’s waiver of the right to 

appeal in the written plea agreement.

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

hearing, we conclude that Barrera knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal

any sentence within the statutory maximum, and that the issues Barrera seeks to raise on 

appeal fall squarely within the compass of his waiver of appellate rights. See United 

States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 156-57 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review and 

providing standard for enforcement of appeal waiver). 
4

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Application for the Designation of a Place for the Sales of Lands, etc., in The Bronx at Public Auction under Judgment or Order of the Court, etc.

The court will hear the parties interested in this question on July 6, 1911, at ten-thirty A. M.
Exhibit 10.3


 





AMENDMENT
TO

INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS


 


THIS
AMENDMENT is made by Glori Energy Inc. (the “Company”) and Stuart Page (the “Optionee”),


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Optionee entered into Incentive Stock Option Agreements under the Glori Energy Inc. 2006 Stock Option and Grant
Plan (formerly known as the Glori Oil Limited 2006 Stock Option and Grant Plan (the “Plan”) on March 27, 2007,
October 15, 2009, October 15, 2010, December 26, 2011, June 4, 2013, June 4, 2013 and December 16, 2013 (collectively, the “Agreements”);


 


WHEREAS,
the Optionee will incur a termination of employment with the Company on June 8, 2016;


 


WHEREAS,
the Agreements generally provide that a Stock Option must be exercised by no later than three months after the date
of termination or the Expiration Date (as defined in the Agreements), if earlier; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Optionee have determined to amend the Agreements to provide that the Optionee may exercise the Stock
Options by no later than April 1, 2017 or until the Expiration Date, if earlier; and


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Agreements are amended as follows:


1.Notwithstanding anything contained
in the Agreements to the contrary, the Stock Options provided for under the Agreements may be exercised by the Optionee until the
earlier of (a) April 1, 2017 or (b) the Expiration Date (set forth in the Agreement). Therefore, the Stock Option provided for
under the Incentive Stock Option Agreement between the Company and the Optionee that was entered into on March 27, 2007, relating
to 99,944 shares (as adjusted), may not be exercised after March 27, 2017. All other Stock Options provided for under the Agreements
may not be exercised after April 1, 2017.


 


2.The Company and the Optionee
agree that the Stock Options provided for under the Agreements will not qualify as “incentive stock options” as defined
in Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


  



    

    

    




  


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Optionee have entered into this Amendment on this 8th day of June 2016. 


 


 


	 	GLORI ENERGY INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	OPTIONEE
	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	Stuart Page
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY LAVON BUMPASS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-238, CA-97-380-1) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Peter David Goldberger, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ELLIS, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bumpass , Nos. CR-93-238; CA-97-380-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED