alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1786
WILLIAM C. BURNHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; AL CANNON; ROBERT TAGUE; Lieutenant; JAMES HILL; BONNIE S. KOONTZ, Magistrate, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-599-2-18AJ) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Burnham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Burnham v. Charleston Co. Sheriff's Dep't , No. CA-97-599-2-18AJ (D.S.C. May 1, 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.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon MOJICA-GUZMAN, also known as Ramon Estrella-Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50229.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Ramon Mojica-Guzman appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Mojica-Guzman complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Mojica-Guzman thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Mojica-Guzman acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 133 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 133

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to assure that immigrants 
   do not have to wait longer for an immigrant visa as a result of a 
    reclassification from family second preference to family first 
    preference because of the naturalization of a parent or spouse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to assure that immigrants 
   do not have to wait longer for an immigrant visa as a result of a 
    reclassification from family second preference to family first 
    preference because of the naturalization of a parent or spouse.

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

SECTION 1. PREVENTING IMMIGRANTS FROM WAITING LONGER FOR IMMIGRANT 
              VISAS AS A RESULT OF RECLASSIFICATION FROM FAMILY SECOND 
              PREFERENCE TO FAMILY FIRST PREFERENCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(h) Assuring Immigrants Do Not Have To Wait Longer for an 
Immigrant Visa as a Result of Reclassification From Family Second 
Preference to Family First Preference.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, in the case of a petition that has been approved to 
accord preference status under subsection (a)(2)(A) may be deemed to 
provide continued entitlement to status under that subsection in the 
case of any alien petitioner who is subsequently naturalized as a 
United States citizen, if a visa is not immediately available to the 
beneficiary under subsection (a)(1).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) takes 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and applies to 
petitions filed before, on, or after such date, without regard to when 
an alien petitioner was naturalized as a citizen of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Ex. 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,  for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United  States  Code,  as adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of
EduLink,  Inc.  ("EduLink"),  that, to his  knowledge,  the Quarterly  Report of
EduLink on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2004,  fully  complies
with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the  information  contained  in such  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material respects,  the financial condition and results of operation of EduLink.
This  written  statement  is being  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed  original of this statement
has been  provided to EduLink and will be retained by EduLink and  furnished  to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


   Date: November 1, 2006                    By:  /s/ Aleksandr Shvarts
                                             --------------------------

                                             ALEKSANDR SHVARTS
                                             Chief Executive Officer

   Date: November 1, 2006                    By:  /s/ Gennady Pomeranets
                                             ---------------------------

                                             GENNADY POMERANETS, CPA

                                             Chief Financial Officer
exv10w44



 






EXHIBIT 10.44




2005 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	Salary	 
	Hollings C. Renton
	 	$	425,000	 
	Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Leonard E. Post, Ph.D.
	 	$	315,000	 
	Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	 	 	 	 
	Scott M. Freeman, M.D.
	 	$	270,000	 
	Vice President, Clinical Development
	 	 	 	 
	Gregory J. Giotta, Ph.D., J.D.
	 	$	275,000	 
	Vice President and Chief Legal Counsel
	 	 	 	 
	Jeanne Y. Jew
	 	$	245,000	 
	Vice President, Corporate and Commercial Development
Exhibit 31.a  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward Munden, President & Chief Executive Officer of DataJungle Software Inc., certify that: (1)I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of DataJungle Software Inc.;  (2)Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  (3)Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operation and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods represented in this report;  (4)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  /s/Edward Munden Edward Munden President & Chief Executive Officer Date: November 14, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Noel Castro,

Petitioner

v. Civil No. 06-cv-011-SM

Opinion No. 2006 DNH 025

United States of America,

Government

O R D E R

Petitioner seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As he

acknowledges, however, this is his second § 2255 petition. The

first was filed in Castro v. United States, No. 97-cv-264-M. 

Judgment denying relief was entered on July 7, 1997.

Petitioner faces a number of difficulties with respect to

his current petition, but the dispositive one here is that this

court is without jurisdiction to entertain his second or

successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See also Pratt v. United

States, 129 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 1997). None of the recognized

exceptions to that rule seem to apply: Petitioner is challenging

the same judgment and sentence he challenged in 1997; he does not

claim newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish his

Case 1:06-cv-00011-SM Document 3 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 3
2

innocence nor does he invoke a new rule of constitutional law

made retroactive by the Supreme Court that was previously

unavailable; the prior petition was not rejected for failing to

pay a filing fee; nor was it in substance a petition under § 2241

rather than § 2255; petitioner is not challenging parts of a

judgment that arose as the result of success on the earlier

petition, etc. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Barrett,

178 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1999).

In order to proceed with his second petition, then,

petitioner must first obtain authorization from the United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Although transfer of a second petition to the court of

appeals for consideration is sometimes the preferable

disposition, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Pratt, supra, transfer is not

mandated in this circuit. Petitioner is not facing any delicate

statute of limitations or certificate of appealability issues

that might warrant transfer. His petition, although cloaked in

terms of “actual innocence” claims, actually seeks sentence

relief under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

Case 1:06-cv-00011-SM Document 3 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Relief on that ground is not likely. The Court of Appeals has

made it clear that, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision

rendering Booker retroactive, § 2255 is not available to advance

Booker claims. Cirilo-Munoz v. United States, 404 F.3d 527 (1st

Cir. 2005). In short, nothing in the petition suggests that

transfer is preferable to dismissal.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. Notwithstanding dismissal by this court, however,

petitioner remains free to seek authorization from the court of

appeals to file a second or successive petition under § 2255.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

February 28, 2006

cc: Noel Castro

Peter E. Papps, Esq.

U.S. Probation

U.S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cv-00011-SM Document 3 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 3
SHANE COREY GRIFFIN

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF F ILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3410

Opinion filed August 19, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original Jurisdiction

.
Shane Corey Griffin, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Responden t.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

ROBERTS, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ.

, CONCUR.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1954** 

In R e: JANSE ELIOT COOKE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:10

- cv - 00156

- LPA )

Submitted : March 13, 2012 Decided: April 4, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Janse Eliot Cooke, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Janse Eliot Cooke petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the
district court’s docket reveals that the district co urt has recently ruled on Cooke’s petition **.** Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis , we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

m aterials before th e c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 10.4


 


THIRD AMENDMENT
TO


THE PIPER IMPACT
401(K) PLAN


 


THIS AGREEMENT by Quanex
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Sponsor”),


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor maintains the
Piper Impact 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.01
of the Plan, the Sponsor has the right to amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor desires to
amend the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor
agrees that, effective as of January       ,
2005, Section (k) of Article VII of the Plan is amended and restated
in its entirety to provide as follows::


 


(k)                                  Except
as otherwise provided below, if a Participant or former Participant has an
outstanding loan from the Plan at the time of his Separation From Service, the
outstanding loan principal balance and any accrued but unpaid interest will
become immediately due in full.  The
Participant or former Participant will have the right to immediately pay the
Trustee that amount.  If the Participant
or former Participant fails to repay the loan, the Trustee will foreclose on
the loan and the Participant will be deemed to have received a Plan
distribution of the amount foreclosed upon. 
The Trustee will not foreclose upon a Participant’s or former
Participant’s Salary Deferral Contribution Account, Catch-up Salary Deferral
Contribution Account or QNEC Account until the Participant’s Separation From
Service.  Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Section (k) or Section (i) to the contrary, a
Participant, who on the day the Sponsor disposes of substantially all of the
assets or the stock of Piper Impact, Inc. (i) has an outstanding loan from
the Plan and (ii) incurs a Separation From Service as a result of such
disposition, will be allowed to repay to the Trustee the outstanding loan
principal balance and any accrued but unpaid interest over the remaining term
of the loan in accordance with the amortization schedule provided in the
loan agreement as if the Participant had not incurred a Separation From
Service, such payments to be made by coupons or similar form under a procedure
to be established by the Loan Committee.


 





















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor
has executed this Amendment this       day of January,
2005.


 


	
   

  	
  QUANEX CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFOPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linens ‘nThings Center, Inc. for the quarterly periodended September 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert J. DiNicola, as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Linens ‘n Things Center, Inc., and Francis M. Rowan, as Chief Financial Officer, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Linens‘n Things Center, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Robert J. DiNicola |                      |
|------------------------|---------------------------|
| **Name:**              | Robert J. DiNicola        |
| **Title:**             | Chairman and Chief        |
|                   | Executive Officer         |
| **Date:**              | November 13, 2007         |
| ** **             |                      |
| ** **             |                      |
| /s/ Francis M. Rowan   |                      |
| **Name:**              | Francis M. Rowan          |
| **Title:**             | Senior Vice President and |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer   |
| **Date:**              | November 13, 2007         |
|                        |                           |  |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5862-000]


Licato, Robert J.; Notice of Filing

September 10, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 4, 2008, Robert J. Licato filed an 
application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant 
to Part 45 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 48 (2007) 
and section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825(b).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the 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 notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d2b283f2e2203010403083e181d1d021f192d0b081f0e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aaeceff8e9e5c4c6c3c4cff9dfdadac5d8deeacccfd8c984cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 25, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21582 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>