alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7569

RUSSELL ADAM PELLETIER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

BOBBY PATTERSON; ALVIN O. WASHINGTON; LAYRANZY

ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiffs,

versus

WHITNEY COLEMAN; BOBBY HARDISON; JACK MCKEEN;

MELBA JONES; KENNETH BILLER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

BERRY; LEWIS; CLATTERBUCK; WOLKOWICZ; STEVEN

KEYS; LUGGAR; DYER; GRAY; (MALE); GARRISON;

MCDANIALS; GRAVES; AYLOR; DR. REESE; CENTRAL

VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL, all Officers; E. L.

CROSLEY; RANDALL J. ARFT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(CA-02-828-7)
- 2 -

Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Adam Pelletier, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Kay Dillon,

Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Russell Adam Pelletier appeals the district court’s order

entering judgment in favor of Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000) action pursuant to a jury verdict. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Pelletier v.

Coleman, No. CA-02-828-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2004). 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
#### Calvin EVERETT v. BATON ROUGE STUDENT HOUSING, L.L.C.; Century Campus Housing Management, L.P. d/b/a Campus Living Villages; Admiral Insurance Company.

No. 2011-OC-1169.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Everett, Calvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 563,176; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 856.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.11

GRAPHIC

Force Protection, Inc.
Force Protection Industries, Inc.
9801 Highway 78, Bldg #3
Ladson, SC 29456


Tel (843) 740-7015
Fax (843) 740-1973 www.forceprotection.net


Date: April 5, 2006

Dear
Ray:

I
am pleased to confirm our offer of employment with Force Protection Inc., (the "Company") on the following terms:

Title:

Chief Operating OfficerCompensation:Salary:

$240,000 per year in cash to be paid bi-weekly (according to the Company's regular practices).Stock Grant:

As an employee, on the first (1st) and second (2nd) anniversary of employment with the Companyan annual grant of shares of the Company's
unregistered common stock equal to $40,000 (calculated using the closing share price as of the date of acceptance of this offer).Relocation:

A one time relocation payment of $30,000 payable upon start of employment.Benefits:

Health insurance and other benefits according to the Company's standard benefits package in effect from time-to-time. You will also be eligible for
Gain Sharing and/or Company Stock Option programs if and when they are approved.Severance:

Your employment is "at will" and the Company may end your employment at any time without prior notice. We agree to "guarantee" twenty-four (24)
months of Salary to you commencing from your start date. If your employment is terminated by the Company without cause during the 24 month period immediately following your Start Date, you will receive a one-time lump-sum severance amount equal to
the remaining Salary compensation you would have been paid during the balance of such 24 month period. As an example, if your employment is terminated without cause 15 months from your start date, you would receive a lump-sum payment of 9 months
under the aforementioned "guarantee"for a total compensation period of 24 months.Start Date:

As soon as available


---



Employment Terms:

Your principal place of work will be at the Company's facility in Ladson, South Carolina.

In
consideration of the Company extending this offer to you, you agree to the following:



We
are extremely pleased to confirm this offer and look forward to your contribution to our Company. This agreement is intended to supersede and replace all other agreements between us
and may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by both of us.

If
the terms hereof are acceptable to you, I would ask that you kindly sign below and return a copy of this letter to me.

Regards,

Sincerely
yours,

By:

/s/ GORDON MCGILTONGordon McGilton 4/7/06

Accepted and Agreed:By:

/s/ RAYMOND POLLARDName: Ray Pollard 4/11/06


2

---



QuickLinks
#### BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. PFD ONE, L.L.C., et al.

No. 2011-CC-0746.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 2010-8075; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0118.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,375
<PP&E>                                         103,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 345,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          856,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,056
<OTHER-SE>                                   (515,783)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   345,541
<SALES>                                         28,339
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,339
<CGS>                                            6,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               513,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (501,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (501,877)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# Time and Date:

1 p.m.-3 p.m., November 15, 2010 (Closed).

*Place:*                         National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, telephone: (304)285-6143.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                              ( print page 59732)    

*Matters to be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of “Member Conflict Review, PA 07-318.”                    

# Contact Person for More Information:

M. Chris Langub, PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Programs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E74, Atlanta Georgia 30333; Telephone: (404)498-2543.

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: September 20, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-24258 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David Gilbert ARDOIN.

No. 2010-K-2809.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Ardoin, David Gilbert; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 477,855; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 1504 R.

Denied.
#### Linda BALDERAS v. DAUTERIVE HOSPITAL.

No. 2011-CC-0619.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Dauterive Hospital; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 109135-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01546.

Denied.
No. 87-6218.

#### Mungin *v.*Georgia.

Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
#### APPEAL OF COMPLAINT NO. 26645.

No. 2010-OB-2459.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Johnson, Elfrida W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Complaint to the Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 26645.

Denied. Premature. Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s disciplinary investigation is ongoing.
News United States Air Force
 Yesterday's Air Force: Reverse Lend-LeasePublished Dec. 2, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- The logistics of war are complicated and having the right aircraft at the right place and time is a key to victory. At the beginning of U.S. involvement in World War II the Reverse Lend-Lease program set the U.S. up for success.
Yesterday's Air Force is a history and heritage featurette series profiling significant people and missions from the Air Force's past.Yesterday’s Air Force 



Reverse Lend-Lease 



World War II 



heritage 



WWII 



Aircraft
Exhibit 31.02



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



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 operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: November 11, 2005              
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1335 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, as the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building’’. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HR 1335 RFS

1 SECTION 1. S/SGT LEWIS G. WATKINS POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, 

5 South Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘S/ 

6 Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. Wat11 kins Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
News United States Air Force
 J-model shows why it’s king in recent rescuePublished Aug. 29, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Ceaira Young
                        
                        
                        23rd Wing Public Affairs
                **MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga (AFNS) --**
                When the phone rings and lives are on the line, rescue Airmen understand that at a moment’s notice they need to be in the air and prepared to do the mission.On Aug. 19 that call came.Within 13 hours an HC-130J Combat King II from the 79th Rescue Squadron and a pararescue team from the 48th Rescue Squadron, both 23rd Wing geographically separated units at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, were airborne.Two hours and more than 600 miles later, the new J-model was on scene. With fuel efficiency and longer loiter to extend the rescue team’s abilities, the J-model allowed the crew to provide medical support on board a Greek shipping vessel, and air refueling to two HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters from Moffett Federal Airfield, California.“Usually the (California Air National Guard) is closest, so they typically get the missions, but the issue with this one was they realized they only had one aircraft available to pass (fuel) to the helicopters and that was not going to be sufficient,” said Maj. Scott Williams, 79th RQS director of operations. “It’s a good mission for us to get out there and be able to do especially because it was short notice. It’s about saving lives and that’s what our guys are ready to do every day.”While saving lives is what the rescue community prepares for every day, the capabilities of the newer HC-130J model helped make this feat possible.“It’s a pretty similar aircraft (to the MC-130 Combat Shadow), but we burn fuel a little bit more efficiently than they do, especially at lower altitudes,” said Capt. Douglas Parrish, a 79th RQS HC-130J pilot. “After taking off from Moffett, when we showed up (the MC-130) didn’t really have much else to give as far as fuel goes and we had about five hours of playtime to hang out with those guys and still give them the gas that they required. So there is pretty much a difference of five hours in capabilities.”The J-model extends the range of the rescue community’s already unique capabilities and proven response times.“From notification to being airborne, it took about 13 1/2 hours and then it took us another two-hour flight to get there,” Williams said. “If we’re deployed and on alert we can be in the air in 30 minutes, but in a civil combat search and rescue scenario like this, this is a pretty good response (time).”The response time, coupled with the new capabilities brought by the HC-130J, ultimately credited the rescue community with another life saved.“(This mission was) an absolute 100 percent success,” Williams added. “We were able to insert the (pararescue team), hoist the patient off the ship and get him to the higher level of medical care that he needed. We’re always ready to go out there and do the job of rescuing and saving lives.”HC-130J 



Moody AFB 



refueling 



HH-60G 



rescue
#### Berg *v.*State.

Opinion delivered June 14, 1926.

Forgery — insufficiency of evidence. — Proof merely that defendant filed with the recorder a deed to himself in which a consideration of $100' is recited, whereas the same deed, reciting a consideration of $1,000, was filed for record a year previously, was insufficient to show a forgery of the deed, since the alteration might have been made by the grantor or by some authorized person.

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; *James Cochran,*Judge;

reversed.

*E. D. Chastain*and *Cravens & Cravens,*for appellant.

*H. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, and *Darden Moose,*Assistant, for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

Appellant was indicted in the circuit court of Crawford County for the crime of forging a deed and uttering the forged instrument. The first count in the indictment charged the forgery and the second uttering the deed.

On a trial of the cause, appellant was acquitted of the forgery but convicted of uttering the instrument, *481and adjudged to serve a term of two years in the State Penitentiary therefor, from which is this appeal.

A number of alleged errors are assigned for the reversal of the judgment, but the first being all-sufficient to support a reversal of the judgment, we need not advert to the others. The first is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. The theory of the State was that appellant forged a warranty deed from Joseph Powell to himself to certain real estate in said county belonging to W. A. Smith, H. G. Seiger and J. W. Smith, for record in the circuit clerk’s office, with intent- to cheat, defraud, and obtain possession of their said property. The circumstances upon which the State relied for a conviction were that, on July 9, 1925, appellant filed a deed with W. A. Bushmiaer, clerk of the circuit court of Crawford County and ex-officio recorder in and for said county, to said real estate from Joseph Powell to appellant, in which a consideration of $100 was recited; whereas the same deed was presented for record a year prior to said,date, which, at that time, recited a consideration of $1,000. The record contains no evidence, other than this • circumstance, in an attempt to prove that the deed was .forged. Por all that appears, the deed had been executed and acknowledged by Joseph Powell and was in every respect genuine. If the consideration had been reduced, there was nothing to show that it was not changed by Joseph Powell, the grantor, or if not changed by him, that it was changed by some one authorized by him to . do so. We do not think the circumstances relied upon by the State are sufficient to show that the deed in question was a forgery, and, unless the instrument was forged; the uttering or publishing of same was not a crime. -The court should have' peremptorily instructed a verdict of not guilty.

On account of the error indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
TEDDY SHAWN STOKES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. 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 FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1533

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. John F. Simon , Judge

.

Teddy Shawn Stokes, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney

G eneral, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS , ROBERTS, and BILBREY, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### JEWELERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. v. PIPELINE SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 2011-CC-0287.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Pipeline Services Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, Nos. 2008-6928, 2008-9756, 2008-9878; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1595.

Denied.