alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6053

SAMUEL ADAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-519) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Adams, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Adams v. Angelone , No. CA-97-519 (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 1997). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             569
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,757
<PP&E>                                          12,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 297,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,436
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   297,075
<SALES>                                         18,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,748
<CGS>                                           12,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,099)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,061)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,038)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,038)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED S HAWN BLITCHINGTON , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 23

- 8 LT Case No. 45

- 2018

- 000637 STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decis ion filed June 20, 2023 Appeal from t he Circuit Court for Nassa u County , J ames H. Daniel, Judge. J essic a J. Year ly, Public Defender, and David Alan Henson, Special Assistant P ublic Defender , Tallahassee, for A ppellant. A s hley Moody, A ttorney General, and Michael L. Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee. PER CURIA M

. A FFIRMED. WALLIS , HARRIS and JAY, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1628

X-Rite, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 24, 2011 

Order 

 

August 24, 2011 

142615(17) 

DOREEN JOSEPH, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 142615 

v COA: 302508 

Macomb CC: 2009-005726-CK 

A.C.I.A., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant-appellant for extension of 

time for filing their brief is considered and the time for filing is extended to August 11, 

2011.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11666

L&R Manufacturing Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 10.18
 AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
AND CONSULTING AGREEMENT
  RECITALS
     Definitions
 Base Pay
 Board
 Cause




---



##### 



Competitive Activity
 Disability
 2




---



##### 



Employee Benefits
 Subsidiary
 Term
 Unauthorized Disclosure, Use or Solicitation
 Term
 Duties, Responsibilities and Office Location
 Compensation and Benefits
 3




---



##### 



Base Pay
 Annual Special Bonus.
 Annual Performance Bonus
 Development Fee.
 4




---



##### 



Employee Benefits.
 Expenses
 Vacation
  Travel Reimbursement
 (
 ( Tax Equalization Program
 5




---



##### 



Life and Disability Insurance.
 Annual Medical Examination
 Indemnification
 6




---



##### 



Termination of Employment or Consultancy
 Termination by Notice
 Voluntary Termination or Termination for Cause
 Termination For Any Reason Other Than Cause, Death, or Disability
   7




---



##### 



Death or Disability
 8




---



##### 



Compensation and Benefits on Termination
   No Mitigation Obligation
 Competitive Activity
 (i)
    
    enter into or engage in any business which competes or
interferes with, or disturbs, the Companys business; or(ii)
    
    solicit customers, business patronage or orders for, or sell,
any product or products, or service or services, in competition with, or for
any business, wherever located, that competes or interferes with, or disturbs,
the Companys business; or(iii)
    
    divert, entice or otherwise take away any customers,
business or patronage or orders of the Company, or attempt to do so; or
 9




---



##### 



(iv)
    
    promote or assist, financially or otherwise, any firm,
person, association, partnership, corporation or other entity engaged in any
business which competes with the Companys business.
  Unauthorized Disclosure, Use or Solicitation
  10




---



##### 



11




---



##### 



Successors and Binding Agreement
    Legal Fees and Expenses
 12




---



##### 



Additional Remedies
   Representation
 Severability
 Notices
 13




---



##### 



Disclosure
 Modifications and Waivers
 Entire Agreement
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
 Headings, Etc
  14




---



##### 



15




---



##### 



INTERSTATE HOTELS AND RESORTS, INC.By:INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLCBy: Henry L. Ciaffone
 16




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 Executive:
    
    Henry L. CiaffoneDuties and Responsibilities:
    
    PresidentInternational Operations and DevelopmentPrimary Reporting Relationship:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
 17
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3(3)

                                 SHOLODGE, INC.


                            ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO
                          AMENDED AND RESTATED CHARTER


         Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 48-20-102 and 48-20-106 of the
Tennessee Business Corporation Act, as amended, the undersigned corporation
adopts the following articles of amendment to its charter:

                  1. The name of the corporation is ShoLodge, Inc.

                  2. The Amended and Restated Charter is hereby amended by
         deleting Paragraph 4 in its entirety and inserting the following in
         lieu thereof:

                           4. Principal Office. The street address and zip code
                  of the principal office of the corporation are 130 Maple Drive
                  North, Hendersonville, Sumner County, Tennessee 37075.

                  3. The amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of
         the corporation by written consent on September 8, 1997. Shareholder
         action was not required.

                  4. This amendment is to be effective upon filing of these
         articles by the Secretary of State of the State of Tennessee.

Dated:  September 8, 1997


                                            SHOLODGE, INC.


                                            By: /s/ LEON MOORE
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Leon Moore, President
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4808]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP95-65-000 and RP95-69-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Technical Conference

February 22, 1995.
    In the Commission's orders issued December 30, 1994, the Commission 
held that the filings in the above captioned proceedings raise issues 
that should be addressed in a technical conference. Take notice that 
the technical conference will be held on Thursday, March 23, 1995, at 
1:00 p.m., in a room to be designed at the offices of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426. All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4808 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2327

Primex Family of Companies:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.12.1

March 26, 2002

John Emery
C/o MeriStar Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
8262 Private Lane
Annandale, VA  22003


         Re:  Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2000 between MeriStar Hotels
              & Resorts, Inc. and MeriStar Management Company, LLC

Dear John:

         Your Employment Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of
         November 1, 2001, as follows:

                  Sections 2(a) and (c) of the Employment Agreement are amended
         to reflect that you will serve in the position of, and maintain the
         title of, "President and Chief Operating Officer" of the Company and
         LLC.

                  Newly added Section 2(d): "While it is understood that the
         right to elect directors of the Company is by law vested in the
         stockholders and directors of the Company, it is nevertheless mutually
         contemplated that, subject to such rights, during the Term the
         Executive will serve as a member of the Company's Board of Directors."

                  Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended to adjust
         your base salary amount to "an aggregate annual rate of not less than
         $230,000 per annum."

         Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms and conditions of
your Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Please
acknowledge your agreement to the above by signing and dating this letter in the
space set forth below.

                                       Sincerely,



                                       Christopher L. Bennett
                                       Senior Vice President and General Counsel


Intended to be legally bound hereby,
The undersigned acknowledges and agrees
to all of the foregoing as of this 26
day of March, 2002.

/s/ John Emery
-------------------------------
John Emery
#### Karen Slade et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v Edward I. Koch, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, New York County,

June 11, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Arthur J. Fried, Steven Banks, Shawn P. Leary*and *Alan Rosner*for plaintiffs. *Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Antonia Levine*and *Ronald Younkins*of counsel), for Edward I. Koch and others, defendants. *Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Robert Shack*of counsel), for Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Helen E. Freedman, J.

On March 16, 1987, this court issued a decision preliminarily and permanently enjoining all of the above-captioned "city” defendants from placing homeless families with pregnant women or children under six months of age in mass or barracks-style shelters without private accommodations, "Tier I” facilities, in accordance with the State family shelter regulations (18 NYCRR part 900) promulgated pursuant to provi*120sions of the New York Social Services Law *(Slade v Koch,*135 Misc 2d 283).

Although the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against the State defendants as well, the court felt constrained by the decision of the Appellate Division in *Matter of Fulton v Krauskopf*(117 AD2d 198 [1st Dept 1986]) to deny the injunction as against the State. However, the court noted that Social Services Law § 17 (a); §§ 20 and 34 (3) (e) require State agencies to " 'supervise all social services work, as the same may be administered by any local unit of government and the social services officials thereof ” (135 Misc 2d 283, 291, *supra)*and Federal regulations (45 CFR 205.40 [b] [1] [iv]; 206.10 [a] [12]) mandate State supervision over social services programs. Moreover, it is newly promulgated State regulations that are specifically at issue.

This court had previously granted an injunction against the State in another case concerning homeless families *(Matter of Lamboy v Gross,*129 Misc 2d 564) involving enforcement of State Administrative Directive 83 ADM-47. After the issuance of the decision in *Slade (supra),*the *Lamboy*decision and order were affirmed in full on March 26, 1987 (126 AD2d 265). The order that was affirmed specifically required the State to supervise and enforce the city respondents’ compliance with Administrative Directive 83 ADM-47. On appeal it appears that the State did not even argue that it was not responsible for enforcement and supervision, merely that flexibility was necessary. Interestingly it was the city that challenged the State’s responsibility in its brief on pages 35 and 36, and that challenge was rejected.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth both in the *Lamboy*decision *(supra,*129 Misc 2d, at 575) and in the original decision in this case on pages 15 and 16, the decision is modified to include the State for purposes of enforcement and supervision of its own regulations. The order, now signed, reflects this modification.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10844-10845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4818]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-4-17-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

February 22, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 16, 1995, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (TPGL) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Twentieth Revised Sixth Revised 
Sheet No. 28, which tariff sheet is proposed to be effective February 
1, 1995.
    TGPL states that the purpose of the instant filing is to track a 
rate change attributable to storage service purchased from Texas 
Eastern Transmission Corporation (TETCO) under its Rate Schedule X-28 
the costs of which are included in the rates and charges payable under 
TGPL's Rate Schedule S-2. The tracking filing is being made pursuant to 
Section 26 of the General Terms and Conditions of TGPL's Volume No. 1 
Tariff.
    Included in Appendix A attached to the filing is an explanation of 
the rate change and details regarding the computation of the revised S-
2 rates.
    TGPL states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each of 
its S-2 customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before March 2, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the [[Page 10845]] appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4818 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2

                Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, T. Edwin Stinson, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of Florida Banks, Inc. (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

1.   the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the
     quarterly  period ended September 30, 2003 (the  "Report"),  filed with the
     U.S.   Securities  and  Exchange   Commission,   fully  complies  with  the
     requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities and Exchange Act
     of 1934, as amended; 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: November 25, 2003                   /s/ T. Edwin Stinson, Jr.
                                          --------------------------
                                          T. Edwin Stinson, Jr.
                                          Chief Financial Officer