alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00275-CR

NARCISO DOMINGUEZ JR.

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2012-DCR-1391-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 5, 2014
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David A. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-5027.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 19, 2006.

J. Lloyd Snook, III, Snook & Haughey, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted David A. Williams of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Williams to sixty-three months’ imprisonment under the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines. The sentencing court also imposed an identical alternative sen*449tence, pursuant to *United States v. Hammond,*378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), *opinion issued by*381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), *vacated,*543 U.S. 1097, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005), *on remand,*405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir.2005). Williams appeals, contending his sentence violated *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

The Sixth Amendment error in this case, if any, was harmless because the district court imposed an identical alternative sentence in accordance with *Hammond. See United States v. Shatley,*448 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir.2006). The district court’s alternative sentence was within the range recommended by the sentencing guidelines, and this court takes the district court at its word when it states it would impose the same sentence under the advisory guideline system. *See id.*at 267-68. Therefore, we presume the district court properly considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2005), as required by *United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-56 (4th Cir.2005); *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.) *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006); and *United States v. Moreland,*437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir.2006). *Shatley,*448 F.3d at 268.

Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ sentence. 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.*
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWIGHT EUGENE SLOAN and KOLANDA KAY WOOTEN

No. 24A07

(Filed 12 October 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.'S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 180 N.C. App. 527, 638 S.E.2d 36 (2006), finding no error in judgments entered 19 April 2005 by Judge John W. Smith in Superior Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 September 2007.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Charles E. Reece, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Richard B. Glazier for defendant-appellant Wooten.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,994]


Child Craft Industries, Inc., Currently Known as Child Craft LLC; 
New Salisbury, IN; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply 
for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 7, 2007, applicable to workers 
of Child Craft Industries, Inc., New Salisbury, Indiana. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2007 (72 FR 54076).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of juvenile furniture.
    New information shows that during July 2008, Child Craft 
Industries, Inc. became known as Child Craft LLC and those workers' 
wages are being reported under the State of Indiana Unemployment 
Insurance (UI) tax accounts for Child Craft LLC.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Child Craft Industries, Inc., currently known as Child Craft 
LLC, New Salisbury, Indiana, who were adversely affected by a shift in 
production of juvenile furniture to Honduras, China and Indonesia.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,994 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Child Craft Industries, Inc., currently known as 
Child Craft LLC, New Salisbury, Indiana, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after October 15, 2007, 
through September 7, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of October 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-25153 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit
10.1


 


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO


THE
COURIER CORPORATION EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM


 


 


This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) is
effective as of the date of approval by the Compensation Committee of the Board
of Directors of Courier Corporation and amends that certain Courier Corporation
Executive Compensation Program (the “Program”), as amended and restated on
December 5, 2005.  Capitalized terms used
herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the
Program.  All other provisions of the
Program shall remain in full force and effect as amended hereby.


 


The Program is hereby amended by replacing
the references to “the January 31 of the new fiscal year” in the Sections
entitled “Annual Cash Incentive” and “Long Term Stock Incentive” by the phrase
“two and a half months into the new fiscal year.”


 


Approved and adopted by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Courier Corporation on September 18,
2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         531,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 531,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,255
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     431,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   531,360
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (140,103)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (140,103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (140,103)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoine Tear GILES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7055.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

*227Antoine Tear Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Tear Giles seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Giles has not made the requisite showing. 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.*

*

 We decline to consider Giles’ ineffective assistance claims or his challenges to the enhancements to his sentence, raised for the first time on appeal. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 31, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00293

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.J.D. A Child,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. FL

- 11

- 356

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Appellate Review Placement Hearing is DENIED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 3.3

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO THE

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
COMPANY

Plains Exploration & Production Company (the Corporation), a corporation duly
organized and validly existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the DGCL), hereby files this Certificate of Amendment (this Amendment) to the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, as amended, and hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | The name of the Corporation is Plains Exploration & Production Company. The original Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the Secretary of State
of the State of Delaware on September 18, 2003 and a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on May 14, 2004.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The first paragraph of Article IV of the Corporations Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The total number of shares of capital stock that the Corporation is authorized to issue is 255,000,000 shares,
consisting of 250,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the Common Stock), and 5,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the Preferred Stock).



| | 3. | This Amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the DGCL.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | This Amendment shall become effective upon its filing in accordance with the provisions of Section 103(d) of the DGCL.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
officer on November 6, 2007.



PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANYBy:

/s/ John F. WombwellName:

John F. WombwellTitle:

Executive Vice President, GeneralCounsel and Secretary
-  Home 
        -  Health Information 
        -  For Health Professionals 
        -  Diabetes Discoveries & Practice Blog 
        -  Archive Results 

Diabetes Discoveries & Practice Blog

## Archive Results

                Results 1 - 4 of 4 for:                     **February 2018**

## Meet the National Diabetes Education Program’s New Chair: Dr. Sue Kirkman

Feb. 28, 20180 Comments

            Sue Kirkman, MD, discusses her new role as the National Diabetes Education Program chair.            Read more

## The Give and Take of Medication Adherence

Feb. 21, 20180 Comments
              - Medication and Monitoring
              - Patient Communication

            50% of patients do not take their medicines as prescribed. What can we do about it?             Read more

## NDEP Celebrates its 20th Anniversary

Feb. 14, 20180 Comments

            Look back over the past 20 years of diabetes translation.            Read more

## Support for Behavior Change

Feb. 7, 20180 Comments
              - Patient Self-Management
              - Patient Communication

            Is knowing what’s best for diabetes the same as knowing what’s best for your patient?            Read more

## Blog Tools

### Subscribe

Subscribe to get blog updates.

### Share this page

FacebookXEmailWhatsAppLinkedInRedditPinterest

### Search

### About

**Diabetes Discoveries and Practice Blog**

### Tags

Patient Communication64

Research Advancements45

Complications of Diabetes35

Medication and Monitoring29

Practice Transformation25

Diabetes Prevention24

Patient Self-Management22

Obesity and Weight Management20

Social Determinants of Health19

New Technologies17

Diabetic Kidney Disease15

Type 1 Diabetes15

Nutrition12

Shared Decision-Making12

Community Health8

### Archive

April 20241

March 20241

Feb. 20241

Jan. 20241

Dec. 20231

Nov. 20231

Oct. 20231

Aug. 20231

July 20231

June 20232

May 20231

April 20231

March 20231

Feb. 20231

Jan. 20232

Dec. 20221

Nov. 20222

Oct. 20222

Sept. 20222

Aug. 20223

July 20222

June 20222

May 20222

April 20222

March 20222

Feb. 20222

Jan. 20222

Dec. 20212

Nov. 20211

Oct. 20212

Sept. 20212

Aug. 20212

July 20212

June 20213

May 20212

April 20212

March 20212

Feb. 20212

Jan. 20211

Dec. 20202

Nov. 20202

Oct. 20204

Sept. 20205

Aug. 20204

July 20203

June 20202

May 20202

April 20201

March 20202

Feb. 20203

Jan. 20202

Dec. 20193

Nov. 20192

Oct. 20192

Sept. 20193

Aug. 20193

July 20193

June 20192

May 20194

April 20192

March 20192

Feb. 20191

Jan. 20192

Dec. 20182

Nov. 20184

Oct. 20184

Sept. 20182

Aug. 20185

July 20183

June 20184

May 20185

April 20184

March 20183

Feb. 20184

Jan. 20183

Dec. 20173

Nov. 20174

Oct. 20172

Sept. 20174

### Disclaimer

We welcome comments; all comments must follow our comment policy.

Blog posts written by individuals from outside the government may be owned by the writer and graphics may be owned by their creator. In such cases, it is necessary to contact the writer, artist, or publisher to obtain permission for reuse.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0003357 25-FEB-2015 07:45 AM
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60956

Summary Calendar

 

SHEHLA SHEIKH,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72-450-369

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Shehla Sheikh seeks review of an order from the

Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying a motion to

reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen deportation

proceedings. Sheikh and her husband, Mirza A. Baig, remained in

the United States beyond their voluntary departure date, and the

BIA held that they were statutorily ineligible for an adjustment

of status and denied a motion to reopen. Sheikh contends that

"exceptional circumstances" exist to excuse her failure to depart

under voluntary departure, thereby warranting the reopening of
No. 03-60956

-2-

the proceedings. She further argues that the BIA violated due

process by denying the motion to reopen before the Immigration

and Naturalization Service responded to a request for an

extension of the voluntary departure date.

Sheikh's brief is nearly identical to the brief filed by

Baig in a separate petition for review, which we have already

denied. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons previously

articulated in Baig's appeal, Sheikh's petition for review is

denied. See Baig v. Ashcroft, No. 03-60592 (5th Cir. Aug. 25,

2004)(unpublished).

PETITION DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 31 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.31
                                          Agreed to May 10, 2005        

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of H.R. 1268, an Act making emergency 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2005, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
is hereby authorized and directed to correct section 502 of title V of 
division B so that clause (ii) of section 106(d)(2)(B) of the American 
Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 
106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 note), as amended by such section 502, reads as 
follows:
            ``(ii) Maximum.--The total number of visas made available 
        under paragraph (1) from unused visas from the fiscal years 
        2001 through 2004 may not exceed 50,000.''.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 18-0578

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

AUSTIN MICHAEL WHITE,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Elizabeth Best, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 16 2020

09/16/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0578
GEOGRAPHY AWARENESS WEEK

✁

✁
Did you know... NGA maintains more than 

57,000 topographic maps worldwide supporting 

combat operations, humanitarian assistance, 

disaster relief and military training.

www.nga.mil

TopoDataQuality@nga.mil

Did you know... NGA maintains the federal 

government’s official repository of 13.7 million

geographic names and 900+ international land 

and maritime boundaries. www.nga.mil

PoliticalBoundaries@nga.mil and 

GeoNames@nga.mil

Did you know... NGA aids the federal 

government in support of disaster and 

emergency response and recovery missions.

www.nga.mil

TopoDataQuality@nga.mil

Did you know... NGA has bilateral agreements 

with more than 70 nations for foundation data 

and products. 

www.nga.mil

TopoDataQuality@nga.mil

Did you know... NGA has 4 billion topographic

features for mission use. 

www.nga.mil

TopoDataQuality@nga.mil

Did you know... NGA’s human geography team 

looks at the geographic features of a place, the 

people who live and operate there and why. 

www.nga.mil

HumanGeography@nga.mil

GEOGRAPHY

AWARENESS WEEK

GEOGRAPHY

AWARENESS WEEK

GEOGRAPHY

AWARENESS WEEK

GEOGRAPHY

AWARENESS WEEK

GEOGRAPHY

AWARENESS WEEK

GEOGRAPHY

AWARENESS WEEK

✁

✁

Approved for public release, NGA-U-2023-01864 OCC 200825-017