alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"STS-41C","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RBQkmoub2w\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-41c\/\">STS-41C<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-41c\/embed\/#?secret=RBQkmoub2w\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-41C” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RBQkmoub2w\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/sts-41c-crew.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":447}
Case 2:15-mj-01864-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/29/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01864-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/29/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01864-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/29/15 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.52

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              GENUINE PARTS COMPANY
                      DIRECTORS' DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

         This Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Genuine Parts Company
Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan") is made and executed this 14
day of November, 2002.

         Pursuant to a resolution of the Compensation and Nominating Committee
of the Company, in accordance with Section 7.01 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

         1.       SECTION  4.05(c) STOCK PAYMENT. One sentence shall be added
at the end of Section 4.05(c), so that Section 4.05(c), as amended, shall read
as follows:

         "If a participant so designates as provided in Section 4.04(i),
         distributions from the Stock Account may be distributed to the
         Participant in the form of Common Stock rather than cash. The shares of
         Common Stock distributable to Directors under the Plan must be
         previously issued and repurchased shares and may not be original issue
         shares. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum number of shares of
         Common Stock that may be distributed under the Plan shall be 1,000,000,
         and once such limit has been reached, all further distributions from
         Participants' Stock Accounts shall be made only in cash."

         2.       EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. As modified hereby, the provisions of
the Plan, as heretofore amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly
executed as of the date first above written.

                                  GENUINE PARTS COMPANY

                                  By: /s/ CAROL YANCEY
                                      ----------------------------
                                      Vice President and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          93,224
<SECURITIES>                                   116,112
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                       478
<INVENTORY>                                         36
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,520
<PP&E>                                         169,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,363
<BONDS>                                        157,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           49,452
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,814
<SALES>                                         34,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,922
<CGS>                                           31,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,744)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.19)


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Spacewalk Training in Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5plOQlnGLz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/spacewalk-training-neutral-buoyancy-laboratory-2\/\">Spacewalk Training in Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/spacewalk-training-neutral-buoyancy-laboratory-2\/embed\/#?secret=5plOQlnGLz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Spacewalk Training in Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5plOQlnGLz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/755439main_jsc2013e021295_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-60282

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH MATERNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:94-CR-2 (02))

April 19, 1996

Before JOHNSON, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Materne appeals his guilty plea convictions on double jeopardy grounds based on a

prior civil forfeiture of drug proceeds found in his possession upon his arrest. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Materne is trying to take

advantage of the attachment of jeopardy in a proceeding where, following proper notice, no one

timely entered an appearance or contested the forfeiture. Such an attempt by Materne to

“retroactively. . .bootstrap himself into the civil forfeiture proceeding and. . .its jeopard effects”

will not be tolerated by this Court. See United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188, 190 (5th

Cir. 1995). Materne’s claims of violations of due process and his right to counsel in connection

with the civil forfeiture proceeding are not properly before this Court on this direct appeal of his
2

convictions. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions in full.

AFFIRMED.
#### Matter of the Application of William Van Wyck and Mary A. Mitchell (Formerly Mary A. McLaughlin), Executors under the Last Will and Testament of Louis K. McLaughlin, Deceased, to Obtain a Determination as to the Construction of the Said Will, and Effect of the Disposition of Property Thereunder, Pursuant to Section 2615 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

April, 1920.)

Wills — construction of — testator’s intention — devise — trusts — vested remainders — deeds.

A clause of a will reading: *“*If my two sons * * * predecease my wife, leaving no issue * * * ” was followed by a devise and bequest of testator’s entire estate to said wife absolutely. *Meld,*that testator’s intention was that upon the death of both sons without issue during the life of their mother, a trust created by the will in her favor should terminate with gift over to her of the principal of the trust; but should there be issue surviving the death of said sons such issue would take a vested remainder.

One of the sons having died without issue, conveyances to the mother by the surviving son did not cut off the right of his two living children to take the principal of the trust at the death of their grandmother in case their father died before them during his mother’s life.

Application for the construction of a will.

William F. Purdy, for executors.

Jerry A. Wernberg, special guardian of Hugh McLaughlin and William J. McLaughlin, infants.

Wingate, S.

The clear intention of the testator, as expressed in the clause of the will, reading: “ If my two sons, Hugh McLaughlin and William M. McLaugh*513lin, predecease my wife, Mary A. Mariott McLaughlin, leaving no issue, then and in that event, I give, devise and bequeath to my said wife my real property in fee simple absolute, and my personal property absolutely, to her and her heirs forever,” is that upon the death of both sons, without issue, during the lifetime of the wife, the trust in her favor should terminate, and there would be a gift over to her of the principal of the trust; but should there be issue surviving the death of said sons, such issue would take a vested remainder in the principal of the trust. In other words, there is in such event an implied gift of the remainder to such issue as may survive the sons. *Matter of Moore,*152 N. Y. 602; *Close*v. *Farmers Loan & Trust Company,*195 id. 92; *Matter of Hoffman,*201 id. 247.

William M. McLaughlin having died without issue, and Hugh McLaughlin being alive and having two children living, his conveyances to his mother do not cut off the right of his issue, the infants herein, to take the principal of the trust at her death, in case he dies before them during his mother’s lifetime.

It follows that Mary A. Mitchell has not now the right to immediate possession of the estate; that the testator did not die intestate as to the remainder over in case Hugh McLaughlin should predecease his mother, and that the trust continues until the life estate terminates by the death of the life beneficiary, when it will be distributable as above indicated. The decree will proceed accordingly.

Decreed accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13



                                 AMENDMENT NO. 5
                   TO AMTC CORPORATION STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

         This Agreement is entered into as of March 1, 2003, between David P.
Cook ("Cook") and Zix Corporation, a Texas corporation ("ZixCorp"). Reference is
made to that certain AMTC Corporation Stock Option Agreement, effective as of
April 29, 1998, between Cook and ZixCorp (the "Cook Option").

1.       Amendments. The Cook Option is amended as follows:

         o    Revise Section 5 in its entirety to read as follows:

              "5. Expiration of Option. The Option shall expire, and shall not
              be exercisable thereafter with respect to any vested shares of
              Common Stock hereunder as to which the Option has not been
              exercised, on the sixth anniversary of the Award Date."

         o    Delete clause (c) and renumber existing clause (d) as clause (c)
              in Section 3.

2.       No Other Changes. Other than as provided herein, the Cook Option shall
         remain in full force and effect.


         Executed on the dates set forth below, to be effective as of the date
first set forth above.

                                     ZIX CORPORATION



                                     By:  /s/ Ronald A. Woessner
                                          -----------------------
                                          Ronald A. Woessner,
                                          Senior Vice President

                                     Date:   3-07-03
                                          -----------------------


                                     /s/ David P. Cook
                                     ----------------------------
                                     David P. Cook


                                     Date:   2/28/2003
                                          -----------------------


                                     /s/ Cheryl G. Cook
                                     ----------------------------
                                     Cheryl G. Cook


                                     Date:   2-28-03
                                          -----------------------
Case 2:15-cr-01377-DGC Document 3 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01377-DGC Document 3 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01377-DGC Document 3 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 3
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BABATUNDE EMMANUEL POPOOLA, a/k/a Emmanuel Popoola, a/k/a Tunde Popoola , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cr - 00277

- PWG

- 5 ; 8:20

- cv - 00006

- PWG )

Submitted : September 30, 2022 Decided: October 14, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Babatunde Emmanuel Popoola , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6058 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Babatunde Emmanuel Popoola seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A ce rtificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reason able jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both tha t the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Popoola has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Popoola’s motion for bail or release pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6058 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA\u2019s X-59 Moves Closer to Runway","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"K2ky3hnevi\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/p23-092-12\/\">NASA\u2019s X-59 Moves Closer to Runway<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/p23-092-12\/embed\/#?secret=K2ky3hnevi\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s X-59 Moves Closer to Runway” — NASA\" data-secret=\"K2ky3hnevi\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/p23-092-12.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Eli Sloan,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-08232-001-PCT-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se “Motion for Reconsideration of Denial 

Imposed on 12/16/2020.” (Doc. 283). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion 

is denied. 

On December 16, 2020, the Court entered an order denying Defendant’s 

“Emergency Motion for Leave to File a Motion for New Trial Under Newly Discovered 

Evidence Rule 33(b)(1).” (Doc. 277.) The Court found Defendant’s motion to be both 

untimely and lacking in merit. Defendant now seeks reconsideration, arguing that the 

Court overlooked newly discovered evidence and “exemptions that overcome procedural 

defaults.” (Doc. 283 at 3.)

So long as the Court retains jurisdiction, it may, in its discretion, reconsider its 

rulings. That discretion should ordinarily be exercised when the judge is convinced that 

the ruling was wrong and that rescinding it would not cause undue harm to the parties. See

U.S. v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of 

Case 3:15-cr-08232-DLR Document 287 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1219, 1227 (7th Cir. 1995)). Thus, motions for reconsideration 

should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. 

Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) 

is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)

(citation omitted). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “to 

rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of 

Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 

99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 

Here, Defendant’s motion points to no newly discovered evidence, no clear error, 

and no intervening change in the law. Instead, Defendant reasserts the issues argued in his 

original motion, making no allegation in his motion that addresses either reason given by 

the Court for denying his original motion. The motion is therefore frivolous. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 283) is 

DENIED. 

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2021.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cr-08232-DLR Document 287 Filed 01/25/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 3:15-cr-08232-DLR Document 287 Filed 01/25/21 Page 3 of 3