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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00226

- CR

STEPHEN KENNETH LANE SELLERS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- 2242

- C1

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed June 4, 2015
**Exhibit 10.1**

THIRD AMENDMENT OF THE 

SOUTHERN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC.DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

Adopted November 9, 2009 

1. The definition of “Key Employee” in Section 1.15 of the Plan is hereby deleted, and the remaining definitions of Article Iare renumbered accordingly. 

2. Section 1.21 is amended by adding the words “, excluding commissions”immediately following the word “Plan”. 

3. The third sentence of Section 5.4 is deleted in its entirety.

4. The first paragraph of Section 6.1 is amended to read as follows: 

“Except as otherwise specified in this Article VI, Credits and Earnings on a Participant’s behalf shall be distributed to theParticipant upon his or her Separation from Service. Any transfer of employment to a subsidiary or affiliate of an Employer will not be considered a Separation from Service for purposes of this Article VI.” 

5. Section 6.2 is amended to read as follows: 

“If a Participant has not elected the optional form of payment as provided in Section 6.3, the Participant’s Credits and Earnings shall be paid to the Participant upon theParticipant’s Separation from Service in a lump sum.” 

6. The first sentence of Section 6.5 is amended to readas follows: 

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Plan, if any amounts credited hereunder are found, in a finaldecision by a court of competent jurisdiction or under an audit closing agreement or other final disposition of the Internal Revenue Service, to be includable in the gross income of a Participant or Beneficiary prior to distribution pursuant to theprovisions of this Article VI because of the Plan’s failure to meet the requirements of Section 409A of the Code and regulations thereunder, such Participant or Beneficiary shall receive payment of an amount equal to the amount found to beincludable in gross income upon the date of such final decision, audit closing agreement or other final disposition, whichever is applicable.” 

 

1 

7. The following Section is added immediately following Section 6.5: 

“6.6 Distribution Upon Certain Designated Payment Dates

For purposes of Sections 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5, a payment will be considered made upon the event giving rise to payment provided it is paid nolater than the later of (a) the last day of the calendar year in which such event occurs or (b) the 15th day of the third calendar month following the month in which such event occurs. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, it is theEmployer’s intention to make such payment no later than 30 days following the occurrence of the event giving rise to payment, absent unusual circumstances.” 

The provisions hereof shall be effective January 1, 2009, except that the provisions of item 2 hereof shall be effective January 1, 2007. 

 

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7318

VINCENT JEROME BOSEMAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANNE SPEARS WALSH; JOHN MEADORS; TAV SWARAT; BRIAN 

PETRANO; J. MARK HAYES, III,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-01482-TLW)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Jerome Boseman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7318 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Jerome Boseman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be 

denied and advised Boseman that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Boseman has forfeited appellate review 

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving 

proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We dispense with 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7318 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6813** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RASHAWN LAMAR DAWKINS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easte rn District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:05

- cr - 00489

- REP

- 1; 3:08

- cv - 00543

- REP )

Submitted : March 15, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011

Before MOTZ and WYNN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

D ismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Rashawn Lamar Dawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Angela Mastandrea

- Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rashawn Lamar Dawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion and his motion for reconsideration . The se order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court de nies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Mil ler

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denia l of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Dawkins ’ motion to supplement his informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 422 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 422

Expressing support for the designation of the first Tuesday in June as 
          ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2019

    Mr. Schneider (for himself, Mr. Huizenga, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. 
    Schakowsky, and Ms. Kelly of Illinois) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of the first Tuesday in June as 
          ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day''.

Whereas it is estimated that 1,762,450 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in 
        the United States in 2019;
Whereas the lifetime probability of a male or female developing cancer is 1 in 
        3;
Whereas a cancer survivor is defined as anyone who has been diagnosed with 
        cancer, from the time of diagnosis through the balance of his or her 
        life;
Whereas the National Cancer Institute reports that there are 16,900,000 cancer 
        survivors in the United States;
Whereas cancer treatments can have severe, prolonged, or permanent side effects, 
        both physical and psychological;
Whereas men, women, and children all have been diagnosed with and battled 
        cancer;
Whereas it is important to recognize the value of support for all men, women, 
        and children who are cancer survivors and the positive impact support 
        has for both patients and families;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' is a purely volunteer event 
        where thousands of volunteers from the spa, beauty, and related 
        industries freely give their support and services to all cancer 
        survivors;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' has expanded to thousands of 
        salons in all 50 States since its inception in 2003;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' is recognized by both State 
        and local governments;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' is the only event of its 
        kind, with no solicitation of funds either before, during, or after the 
        event; and
Whereas the first Tuesday in June would be an appropriate date to designate as 
        ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'': Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day''.
                                 <all>
```
#### James A. Barrett, as Guardian ad Litem for James A. Barrett, Jr., et al., Respondents, v Miguel Carela et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[822 NYS2d 785]

*831In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Miguel Carela and Pinnacle Freight Lines, Inc., appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 10, 2005, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter judgment pursuant to a purported settlement of the action, and (2) from an order of the same court dated August 8, 2005, which denied their motion for leave to reargue and renew their opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 8, 2005, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 10, 2005, is reversed insofar as appealed from and that branch of the motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter judgment is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to appellants payable by the plaintiffs.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in support of that branch of their motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter judgment pursuant to a purported settlement of this action did not include a signed writing incorporating all material terms of the purported settlement, and thus failed to demonstrate that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement *(see*CPLR 2104; *Bonnette v Long Is. Coll. Hosp.,*3 NY3d 281 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion and authorizing the entry of a judgment at this juncture.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellants’ remaining contentions.

The appeal from the order dated August 8, 2005, must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from so much of the order as denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to reargue, and that portion of the order which denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter judgment has been rendered academic by our determination of the appeal from the order dated February 10, 2005. Prudenti, PJ., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clarence Wilson, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 707]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony E Aloi, J.), rendered July 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JOHNNY MOORE, AKA John Moore, Jr., AKA Steve,
Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10077
D.C. No. 2:15

- cr - 00226

- GMN

- PAL

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020 * *
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Johnny Moore appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 36

- month sentence for interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A)

. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S . 738 (1967), Moore ’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 10077

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. After striking Moore’s pro se supplemental opening brief, we provided him an opportunity to file a new pro se brief, which he has not done. No answering brief has been filed.
Moore waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver , except that the
waiver is unenforceable as to the restitution order because M oore was not provided with any estimate of the restitution amount in his plea agreement

. See United
States v. Tsosie , 639 F.3d 1213, 1217

- 18 (9th Cir. 2011) . Nonetheless, our independent review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the uncontested restitution order. We accordingly affirm the restitution order. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the val id appeal waiver. See United
States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 9 88 (9th Cir. 2009)

. In trial counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal, which this court previously granted, she indicated that Moore wished to appeal on the grou nd that she provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the possibi lity that he would be required to register as a sex offender. Assuming trial counsel’s assertion is correct, such a claim cannot be addressed on direct appeal. See United
States v. Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 2011).3 18

- 10077

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Within 7 days after the date of this disposition, former counsel must serve this disposition on Moore individually and provide this court with proof of suc h
service. AFFIRMED in part ; DISMISSED in part.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Proposed Release and Closure of Michael Airfield, 
Cicero, NY From Its Grant Assurance Obligations, Request for Comments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public 
comment on Michael Airfield (1G6), Cicero, New York notice of proposed 
closure and release from aeronautical use of the entire airport. The 
airport consists of approximately 34.19 acres of airport property, 
including runway 10-28, taxiways, aprons, airside and landside 
facilities to allow for possible non-aeronautical development. It has 
been determined, by closing Michael Airfield, the flying public would 
best benefit from using Syracuse Suburban Airport (6NK), Syracuse, New 
York. The sponsor who owns and operates both Michael Airfield and 
Syracuse Suburban Airport, plans to close 1G6 airport and dispose of 
the property. Michael Airfield, a privately owned public use reliever 
airport last accepted an airport capital development grant in 1991 for 
a runway rehabilitation project, thus, not obligated under the 1996 
revenue use policy. The revenue generated from the sale of the closed 
airport would not be reinvested into 6NK. Proposals from the sponsor 
determined that land constituting Michael Airfield has no aeronautical 
use and should be closed. Documents reflecting the sponsor's request 
are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Airport 
Sponsor's office and the FAA Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, FAA New 
York Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden 
City, New York 11530. In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to 
the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. David Pizio, Member, Gildner 
Road Associates, LLC, at the following address: 2063 Jamesville 
Terrace, Jamesville, New York 13078.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, New York 
Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden City, 
New York 11530; telephone (516) 227-3803; FAX (516) 227-3813; e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 1st Century (AIR21) requires the FAA 
to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment before the 
Secretary may waive a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain 
airport land for aeronautical use.

    Issued in Garden City, New York on June 22, 2009.
Steven M. Urlass,
Manager, New York Airports District Office, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. E9-15317 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00616-CR

Michael Fitzgerald Reese

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

27th District Court of Bell County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 68115

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.

July 16, 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29503-29504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14632]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-N-12]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Capacity Building for Community Development and 
Affordable Housing Grants

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Through this notice, HUD announces the availability on its Web 
site of the application information, submission deadlines, funding 
criteria, and other requirements for the FY2009 Capacity Building for 
Community Development and Affordable Housing (Capacity Building) NOFA. 
The FY2009 Capacity Building NOFA makes $34 million in assistance to 
carry out the eligible activities related to affordable housing and 
community development for the section 4 capacity building program, of 
which at least $5 million shall be made available for rural capacity 
building activities. Applicants for assistance under the Capacity 
Building NOFA must address applicable requirements found in the Notice 
of HUD's Fiscal Year 2009 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) Policy 
Requirements and General section to the

[[Page 29504]]

HUD's FY2009 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs published on December 29, 
2008 (73 FR 79548), as amended on April 16, 2009 (74 FR 17685). 
Applicants should take particular note that they should follow the 
application submission instructions contained in this NOFA and not use 
those in the General section. The notice providing information 
regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility 
requirements is available on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
Capacity Building NOFA program, a Community Planning and Development 
Specialist, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, Office of 
Community Planning and Development, Department Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7137, Washington, DC 20410-
7000; telephone (202) 708-2290 (this is not a toll-free number) or 1-
877-787-2526 (this is a toll-free number). Persons with speech or 
hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling 
the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 
800-877-8339.

    Dated: May 20, 2009.
Nelson R. Breg[ograve]n,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-14632 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P