alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FAUSTO RUIZ-VARGAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-00-407; CA-03-629-1) Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fausto Ruiz-Vargas, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fausto Ruiz-Vargas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ruiz-Vargas that failure to file timely objections to the recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Ruiz-Vargas failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ruiz-Vargas has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7329
JOHNNY WADE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH E. OLSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-535-5) Submitted: November 26, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Wade Johnson, 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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Olson , No. CA-97-535-5 (S.D.W. Va., July 18, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion issued November 7, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00670-CV

———————————

ALBERT T. VAN HUFF, Appellant

V.

TRACI M. VAN HUFF, Appellee

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008-34216

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a)(1). No opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c). 

Further, although appellant failed to include a certificate of conference in his

motion, appellant’s motion includes a certificate of service, more than ten days 
2

have passed since the motion was filed, and no party has responded to the motion. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Caughey.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 31.1
                                                                ------------

                                CERTIFICATION

         I, Zsolt Rumy, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Zoltek
Companies, 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 operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

         4. I am 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 my supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this quarterly 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant'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 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:  December 29, 2004

                                       By: /s/  Zsolt Rumy
                                           -------------------------------
                                                Zsolt Rumy
                                                Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, John B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

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 thestatements 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 flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and we have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

a) Allsignificant 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 financialinformation; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 15, 2007
Exhibit 32.01 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Annual Report of Anoteros, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George
G. Chachas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:
  (1)        The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)        The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
   
 __________________________________________
 By:
George G. Chachas
 Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  Dated:
April 28, 2008
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Amendments to Employment Agreement Letter



 Exhibit 10.10 
  
 NORCRAFT HOLDINGS, L.P. 
 3020 Denmark Ave. Suite 100

 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 
  
  
 August 17, 2004 
  
 Mr. Mark Buller 
 4005 Henderson Highway

 East St. Paul 
 Manitoba, R2E1B3 
 Canada 
  
 Re:     Amendment to Employment Agreement 
  
 Dear Mark: 
  
 Reference is made to the October 21, 2003 letter (the
“Employment Agreement”) setting forth the terms of the employment agreement between you and Norcraft Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Holdings”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have
the meanings assigned to them in the Employment Agreement. 
  
 This letter, when
countersigned by you, shall amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein. 
  
 Notwithstanding Section 3 of the Employment Agreement, effective as of the date hereof your bonus will no longer be capped at 50% of your base salary, but will instead be determined pursuant to senior executive bonus plans of Holdings and
the Company as in effect from time to time in the discretion of the General Partner of Holdings. The magnitude of the bonus will continue to be tied to certain financial performance objectives to be set by the General Partner of Holdings for each
fiscal year at the close of the preceding year, in consultation with you. 







  
 Except as set forth expressly in this
letter, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
  
 Sincerely, 
  
  

			
	NORCRAFT HOLDINGS, L.P.
	 
	 
	 By:
	 	NORCRAFT GP, L.L.C.
	 	 	Its General Partner
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 By:
	 	 
	 	 	

	 	 	Name:
	 	 	Title:
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
	 
	 	 	

	 	 	Mark Buller

  
  

 -2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AS OF AND FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AS CONTAINED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM
10-Q FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q. DOLLARS ARE IN THOUSANDS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          38,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,683)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         16,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,099
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,998
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,481
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    844
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                844
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       844
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alton Anthony ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50425.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alton Anthony Robertson, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing in this court is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Alton Anthony Robertson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Robertson contends that the district court erred by failing to determine whether Amendment 506 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines applied retroactively to his sentence. Further, Robertson argues that Amendment 506 qualifies him for a reduction in sentence. We disagree.

It is undisputed that Amendment 506, if applicable, would be retroactive. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c).

Robertson was sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). Because section 2113(d) authorizes no sentence enhancement provisions that have any effect on the statutory maximum, Amendment 506 is inapplicable to Robertson’s sentence. *See*U.S.S.G.App. C, Amendment 506 (amending definition of “offense statutory maximum”); *United States v. Townsend,*98 F.3d 510, 513 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (noting that because Amendment 506 has no effect on the statutory maximum sen*140tence for a violation of § 2113(a), it was inapplicable to appellant’s sentence). Consequently, the district court properly denied Robertson’s section 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
About NHTSA                                  

# Accessibility

Language:    English    -  Español

Share:*Facebook**Twitter**LinkedIn**Mail*

NHTSA is committed to providing equal access to website content for all website visitors. We strive to make our websites as accessible and usable by following Section 508 and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is a federal law that requires government agencies to provide people with disabilities equal access to electronic information and data comparable to those who do not have disabilities.

### Report an Accessibility Issue

If you have difficulty accessing information on our websites, please email us. Or, call 888-327-4236 (Hearing Impaired TTY: 888-275-9171), Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. ET, excluding Federal Holidays. 

We will work to address accessibility issues reported to us and provide information in a format accessible to you.

### Accessibility Tools

For more information on accessibility tools, visit the FCC Accessibility Clearinghouse and the Access Board websites to find information on accessible technologies such as alternative screen readers, screen magnifiers and other devices.

### Accessibility Feedback

To provide feedback on the accessibility of NHTSA’s websites, email our Section 508 program coordinator. 

 

*Last updated: July 19, 2023*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          22,507
<SECURITIES>                                    70,948
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     32,115
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,352
<PP&E>                                         405,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                 175,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           203
<OTHER-SE>                                     338,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,717
<SALES>                                        202,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,218
<CGS>                                          130,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,305
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,762
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,502
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,502
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55
        

</TABLE>
The District Court of the *4th*Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. PATRICK SAYERS, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-83 ORDER

On August 8,2007, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Thirty (30) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense ofVehicular Homicide While Under the Influence, a felony; Counts II. Ill and IV: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Center for a term of six (6) months on each Count for the offenses of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, a misdemeanor; CountV: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Center for a term of six (6) months for the offense of Driving a Motor Vehicle While Privilege to Do So is Suspended or Revoked, a misdemeanor; and Count VI: A commitment *18to the Missoula County Detention Center for a term of ten (10) days for the offense of Operating Without Liability Insurance In Effect - 1st Offense, a misdemeanor. Counts I - VI shall run concurrently with each other.

On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kara Docherty and Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Counsel for the defendant requested an opportunity to produce transcripts and to therefore keep the record open in this matter pending the production of such transcripts for review by the sentence review division.

On March 8,2010, the Sentence Review Division received counsel’s Notice - Supplementation of Record which included the transcript from the sentencing hearing. After review of the Notice - Supplementation of Record and due consideration, the Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.