alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES E. CARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-66, CA-97-916-2) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent Carr appeals from the district court’s orders entered on September 24, 1998, and July 19, 1998, we find no reversible error. 2 PER CURIAM: James E. Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Carr , Nos. CR-93-66; CA-97-916-2 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2002). * 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
Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Mark W. Dowley, constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them, his true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, and any amendments or supplements thereto,
and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange granting unto each of
said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully
to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

Dated
this 22th day of June 2001

|Signature                                  |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 
|                                           |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Mark W. DowleyMark W. Dowley, Director |  |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Brooklyn Cooperage Company, Relator, v. John McDonough and Others, as Town Auditors of the Town of Altamont, and Composing the Board of Town Auditors Thereof, and Said Board of Town Auditors of Said Town, Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

May 27, 2014

s0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148832

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148832

COA: 318540

Oakland CC: 2012

- 242869

- FC

TIMOTHY SUAVE WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 0029 9

- CR

JEROME JOHNSON

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 08

- CR

- 2124

- F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 16, 2014
QIAN IDRAHIM ZHAO, Plaintiff,
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 09-1986 UNKNOWN CIA AGENT, et aI., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED NOV 1 6 2009 NANCYMAYER WHITTINGTON. CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed informapauperis and prose complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiffalleges that, in 2004 in the District ofColumbia, an unidentified agent ofthe Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") arrested him, searched his person and property, falsely imprisoned him, and seized his passport, among otherproperty. Further, plaintiffalleges that his passport now is in the possession ofthe Department ofHomeland Security ("DHS"), and that the agencyhas refused to return it. According to plaintiff, both the unidentified CIA agent and the DHS have violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and he demands compensation for the loss ofhis property and lost income, and for emotion al distress. It appears that plaintiffs sole means ofrecovery comes under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FCTA"), see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FTCA provides that the "United States shall be liable [for tort claims] in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." 28 U.S.c. § 2674(a). Itrequires that a claimant present his claim to the appropriate federal agencyprior to filing a civil action in a federal district court. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (requiring claimant to presentclaim "formoney damages for injury or loss ofproperty ... caused bythe negligent orwrongful act or omission ofany employee ofthe Government while acting within the scope ofhis office or employment
... to the appropriate Federal agency" from which written notice ofthe denial ofthe claim has been forwarded to the claimant before a suit maybe filed). Itdoes not appear that plaintiffhas exhausted ofhis administrative remedies byhaving presented his claim first to the appropriate agency and, absent exhaustion, this Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Even ifplaintiffhad exhausted his available administrative remedies, plaintiffcannot prevail because "the United States simplyhas not rendered itself1iable under [the FTCA] for constitutional tort claims." Fed. DepositIns. Corp. 

### v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 478; seeZakiya 

### v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 2d 47,56 (D.D.C. 2003. Further, the FTCA expressly excludes relief for a claim offalse imprisonment. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The Court will dismiss this action for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date.

DATE: (\ 

### I

# (O{O't

# un~i!~U~
Exhibit 10(a)

 

[SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP]

 

ELISABETH M. BENTZINGER

DIRECT LINE: 202.383.0717

E-mail: elisabeth.bentzinger@sutherland.com

 

April 25, 2014

 

VIA EDGAR

 

Board of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 280 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223

 

Re:                             Protective Variable Annuity

Post-Effective Amendment No. 8

 

Directors:

 

We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption “Legal Matters” in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 8 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-179649) by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Elisabeth M. Bentzinger
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Elisabeth M. Bentzinger
**EXHIBIT 3.3**

 

**P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

AMENDMENT

TO THE

AMENDED BY-LAWS

OF

P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.

 

ARTICLE III

DIRECTORS

 

SECTION 1. POWERS, NUMBER,QUALIFICATION AND TERM. The property, affairs and business of the corporationshall be managed by its board of directors, consisting of ten persons. Thedirectors shall be elected for three year terms to succeed those whose termsthen expire. If a vacancy shall occur in any class, the director elected tofill that vacancy shall be elected for the remaining term of that class. Thedirectors shall have the power at any time when a stockholders’ meeting is notin session to increase or decrease their own number by an amendment to theseBy-Laws. If the number of directors be increased, the additional directorsshall be elected for such terms as shall maintain equality in the annualclasses, as nearly as may be practicable. Vacancies created by an amendmentincreasing the number of directors may be filled like other vacancies by amajority of the directors in office at that time. If the number of directors bereduced, the terms of the directors remaining in office need not be changed,but the terms of the directors elected to succeed them shall be changed to theextent necessary to maintain equality in the annual classes, as nearly as maybe practicable. The number of directors shall never be less than three.Directors need not be stockholders.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICKY DAVID D. SMITH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 298 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Naomi SANDRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION; St. Risk Management; Chennel Lite; Ann Wax; Lorraine Leblanc, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-31244.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Nicole Sandres appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’ summary judgment motion and the dismissal with prejudice of her civil complaint, which raised claims under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. After filing her complaint, Sandres voluntarily dismissed her employment discrimination claims.

Although this court applies less stringent standards to parties proceeding *pro se*than to litigants, *pro se*parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 28. *Grant v. Cuellar,*59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). “Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)[9] requires that the appellant’s argument contain the reasons [s]he deserves the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.” *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

Sandres does not challenge the district court’s reasons for granting summary judgment or cite specific errors by the district court. Because Sandres fails to identify any factual or legal error by the district court, she has failed to brief the issues for appeal adequately. Fed. R.App. *387P. 28(a)(9); *Brinkmann,*813 F.2d at 748; *Yohey,*985 F.2d at 225.

This appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). It is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit










EXHIBIT 10.8


SUMMARY OF KEY TERMS OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
WITH PACIFICORP NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 


PacifiCorp's named executive officers (other than its Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, William J. Fehrman) each receive an annual salary and participate in health insurance and other benefit plans on the same basis as other employees, as well as certain other compensation and benefit plans described in PacifiCorp's Annual Report on Form 10-K. Mr. Fehrman is employed by PacifiCorp's parent company, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company ("BHE") and is not directly compensated by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp reimburses BHE for the cost of Mr. Fehrman's time spent on PacifiCorp matters, including compensation paid to him by BHE, pursuant to an intercompany administrative services agreement among BHE and its subsidiaries. 


The named executive officers are also eligible to receive a cash incentive award under PacifiCorp's Annual Incentive Plan ("AIP"). The AIP provides for a discretionary annual cash award that is determined on a subjective basis and paid in December. In addition to the AIP, the named executive officers are eligible to receive discretionary cash performance awards periodically during the year to reward the accomplishment of significant non-recurring tasks or projects. The named executive officers are participants in PacifiCorp's Long-Term Incentive Partnership Plan ("LTIP"). A copy of the LTIP is included in Exhibit 10.15 to this Form 10-K.


Base salary for named executive officers for PacifiCorp's fiscal year ending December 31, 2020 (excluding Mr. Fehrman) is shown in the following table:


	
					
	Name and Title
	 
	Base Salary

	 
	 
	 

	Stefan A. Bird
	 
	$
	365,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Gary W. Hoogeveen
	 
	350,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Rocky Mountain Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Nikki L. Kobliha
	 
	239,571
	


	Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	 
	 






Mr. Bird, Mr. Hoogeveen and Ms. Kobliha are also directors of PacifiCorp, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of PacifiCorp. Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Patrick J. Goodman and Ms. Natalie L. Hocken are directors of PacifiCorp as well as employees of BHE, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors of PacifiCorp other than what they receive as employees of BHE.
217 La. 672

#### STATE v. CUMMINGS.

No. 39847.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1950.

Neal N. Bagwell, Franz Joseph Baddock, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. General, M. E. Culligan, Ass’t Atty. General, Fred S. LeBlanc, District Atty., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., 1st Ass’t District Atty., Baton Rouge, for appellee.

LE BLANC, Justice.

The defendant, -Isaac Cummings, was charged by bill of information filed January 10, 1950, with the -crime of simple *42burglary. He was formally arraigned on January 10, 1950 and pleaded “Not Guilty”. The case was tried on January 23, 1950, the jury finding a verdict of “Guilty as. Charged” on the same day. On January 30, 1950, a motion for a new trial was filed. On February 6, 1950, a supplemental and amended motion for a new trial was filed. On February 20, 1950, the motion for a new trial was argued, submitted and overruled. On February 24, 1950, the accused was sentenced to confinement in the State penitentiary .for a term of three years and on February 27, 1950, a motion and order of appeal was granted returnable to this court on or before March 28, 1950.

No formal motion to dismiss the appeal is presented but in brief filed on behalf of the State it is urged that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that no bills of exception whatever were taken in the case, and, therefore, nothing is presented to this court for review.

Defense counsel did not file a brief but did file a motion to remand. In this motion, they urge that the record is incomplete in that it does not show that they reserved bills of exception to certain of the court’s rulings. However, it was conceded in argument that there were no bills of exception perfected.

Counsel also urge that the case should be, remanded for the further reason that a . motion and supplemental motion for a new trial were not disposed of by the trial judge. However, it is shown in the minutes of the court, extracts from which appear in the record before us, that on February 20, 1950, the court heard arguments on these motions and denied same.

Assuming, as alleged in the motion to remand, that certain bills of exception were reserved during the trial of the case, counsel took no steps to preserve any of inem by presenting them to the trial judge for his signature. That was a necessary procedure if they intended to have them considered on appeal. See Code of Criminal Law and Procedure, Arts. 499, 542 and 545. See also State v. Carlson, 192 La. 501, 188 So. 155, and State v. Owens, 210 La. 808, 28 So.2d 337. As the matter stands there is nothing for us to review.

Otherwise, there appears no error, patent on the face of the record, and, in the absence of any objection or bill of exception, the accused cannot avail himself of the errors now complained of. Code of Criminal Law and Procedure, Art. 502.'

For these reasons, the judgment and sentence appealed from are affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6290 

To provide for the establishment of a section of the website of the Department 

of Commerce that shall serve as the primary hub for information relating 

to Federal manufacturing programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2021 

Mr. TONKO (for himself, Mrs. AXNE, and Mr. UPTON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for the establishment of a section of the website 

of the Department of Commerce that shall serve as the 

primary hub for information relating to Federal manufacturing programs, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manufacturing.gov 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MANUFACTURING.GOV HUB. 

7 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Sec8 retary’’ means the Secretary of Commerce. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6290 IH

1 (b) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 1 year after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordi3 nation with the Chief Information Officer of the Depart4 ment of Commerce, shall modify the manufacturing.gov 

5 website by establishing a section of the website to be 

6 known as the ‘‘manufacturing.gov hub’’. 

7 (c) FUNCTIONS.—The manufacturing.gov hub estab8 lished under subsection (b) shall— 

9 (1) serve as the primary hub for information re10 lating to every Federal manufacturing program, in11 cluding the programs identified in the report of the 

12 Government Accountability Office entitled ‘‘U.S. 

13 Manufacturing’’ (GAO 17–240), published on March 

14 28, 2017; 

15 (2) provide the contact information of relevant 

16 program offices carrying out the Federal manufac17 turing programs described in paragraph (1); 

18 (3) provide an avenue for public input and feed19 back relating to— 

20 (A) the functionality of the website of the 

21 Department of Commerce; 

22 (B) the Federal manufacturing programs 

23 described in paragraph (1); and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6290 IH

1 (C) any other manufacturing-related chal2 lenges experienced by manufacturers in the 

3 United States; 

4 (4) establish web pages within the hub that 

5 shall focus on— 

6 (A) technology and research and develop7 ment; 

8 (B) trade; 

9 (C) workforce development and training; 

10 (D) industrial commons and supply chains; 

11 and 

12 (E) small and medium manufacturers; and 

13 (5) use machine learning to— 

14 (A) identify frequently asked questions; 

15 and 

16 (B) disseminate to the public answers to 

17 the questions identified under subparagraph 

18 (A). 

19 (d) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS.—No additional funds 

20 are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of car21 rying out this section. The Secretary shall carry out this 

22 section using amounts otherwise available to the Secretary 

23 for such purposes. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         104,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    696,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,240
<PP&E>                                       2,682,460
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,023,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,573,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          350,399
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       415,434
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,807,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,573,050
<SALES>                                      1,426,340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,444,373
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  802,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,786
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                624,887
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   624,087
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>