alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7606
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZO WHITE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-94-229-A, CA-97-793-AM) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Lorenzo White, Appellant Pro Se. Robert William Wiechering, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. White , Nos. CR-94-229-A; CA-97-793-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 1997). 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
# Employee Benefits in the United States

"The Employee Benefits in the United States release presents data on selected employee benefits provided by employers.  Data on access to benefits (percentages of workers who may enroll if they so choose) and on participation (percentage of workers who actually choose to enroll) for retirement, medical, and life insurance are included, as well as access to selected paid leave benefits and data on employee and employer contributions to medical care. For more information, see www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/."

- Retirement benefits are available to 94% of private industry union workers in March 2023
- Life insurance is available to 57% of private industry workers in March 2022
- Paid sick leave available to 77% of private industry workers in March 2021
- Paid sick leave available to 75% of private industry workers in March 2020
- Retirement benefits available to 91% of state and local government workers in March 2019
- Medical care benefits available to 69% of private industry workers in March 2018
- Civilian workers' participation rate in medical care benefits is 52% in March 2017
- Worker participation rate for employer-sponsored medical care benefits is 52% in March
- Retirement benefits available to 66 percent of private industry workers in March 2015
- Medical care benefits available to 86 percent of full-time private workers in March 2014
- Medical care benefits were available to 85 percent of full-time private workers in March
- Medical care availability higher in private establishments with >100 workers in March 2012
Exhibit 32.02  Certification of Principal Accounting Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blugrass Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey Dunphy, Principal Accounting 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: (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 results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Jeffrey DunphyJeffrey DunphyPrincipal Accounting OfficerDecember 23, 2010 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
EXHIBIT 10.41


 





 


 


March 5, 2013


Armada Oil Inc.


10777 Westheimer Rd.,


Suite 1100


Houston, TX 77042


 


Attn: Jim Cerna


 


RE: Amendment and Extension Purchase and Option Agreement Bear
Creek Prospect & Overland Trail Prospect Carbon County, Wyoming


 


Dear Mr. Cerna:


 


Whereas in a Letter Agreement dated February 7, 2012 and amended
September 25, 2012, and again amended January 10, 2013, TR Energy, Inc. (TR), and Armada Oil, Inc. (Armada) did enter into a Purchase
and Option Agreement covering certain lands in Carbon County, Wyoming; and whereas, both TR and Armada agree that certain terms
of the original agreement and all amendments need to be amended once again;


 


Now, therefore, both TR and Armada agree to the following terms:


 


1. Armada acknowledges that it has executed the option to pay
the $736,000 to TR for the Unit acreage. The Unit acreage shall remain as described in the original agreement. Armada shall pay
the first installment of $250,000 as described on or before April 15, 2013. \


 


All other terms of the original and amended agreements remain
in place.


 


Regards,


 


W.L. Sudderth


Vice President of TR Energy, Inc.


 


Accepted this 5th day of March, 2013.


 


ARMADA OIL INC.


 


 


James J Cerna Jr.


CEO


 


 


 


 


 





P. O. Box 479, Tyler, Texas 75710-0479


903-595-4139 OFFICE


903-595-0344 FAX
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-686V Filed: August 16, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CANDY GLASCOCK, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis * (“Tdap”); Shoulder Injury Related

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Michael McLaren, Black McLaren, et al ., PC, Memphis, TN, for petitioner. Lara Englund, U.S. Department of Just ice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On June 10, 2016, petitioner filed a petit ion for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that following an April 13, 2015 tetanus -diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Offi ce of Special Masters.

On August 16, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent agreed that petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the Tdap vaccination she received on April 13, 2015 Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfi ed all legal prerequisites fo r compensation under the Vaccine

Act. Id.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

HARRY LEE DAVIS, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-3383 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed May 6, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; William D. Sites, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

CASANUEVA, Judge. 

 Harry Lee Davis, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion filed 

pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Davis's motion alleged 

that he received two mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of 

parole for two counts of first-degree murder that he committed when he was seventeen 
- 2 -

years old. The motion was denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held 

that Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), did not apply retroactively. The Florida 

Supreme Court has recently held that the Miller decision applies retroactively to all 

juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was 

decided. Falcon v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S151, S151 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015). 

Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order summarily denying the claim. 

 We note that the Florida Supreme Court has further held in Horsley v. 

State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S155, S155 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015), that the proper remedy in 

cases involving juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under Miller is 

to apply chapter 2014–220, Laws of Florida. The court concluded that "applying chapter 

2014–220, Laws of Florida, to all juvenile offenders whose sentences are 

unconstitutional under Miller is the remedy most faithful to the Eighth Amendment 

principles established by the United States Supreme Court, to the intent of the Florida 

Legislature, and to the doctrine of separation of powers." Id. at S160. The relevant 

provisions of chapter 2014–220 have been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 

921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. 

Davis's motion and remand for a resentencing proceeding consistent with this new 

juvenile sentencing legislation. See Horsley, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S155; Falcon, 40 Fla. L. 

Weekly S151. 

 Reversed and remanded with directions. 

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    28642
<ALLOWANCES>                                       200
<INVENTORY>                                       9469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 42521
<PP&E>                                           24874
<DEPRECIATION>                                   11573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   95918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            36673
<BONDS>                                          53776
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             2250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                        3107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     95918
<SALES>                                          24559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 24559
<CGS>                                            16546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    16546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    296
<INCOME-TAX>                                       104
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                192
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       192
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
exhibit10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


 





 




  





Page - 1











  






 





 




  





Page - 2











  






 





 




  





Page - 3











  






 





 




  





Page - 4











  






 





 




  





Page - 5











  






 





 




  





Page - 6











  






 





 




  





Page - 7











  






 





 




  





Page - 8











  






 





 




  





Page - 9











  






 





 




  





Page - 10
March 5, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EX PARTE TYGER WADE LUCAS

NO. 14-12-00289-CR

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance. The Court further orders that Tyger Wade Lucas pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal.
#### The Frisia and The John N. Parker.1 Kitchin *v.*The John N. Parker.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

May 11, 1885.)

Costs — Foreign Commission—Evidence — Customary Rate—Reasonable Charge.

In the absence of evidence to show the existence at the place of executing a commission of a customary rate of charges for commissioner’s services, or for like services, proof that the sum actually paid the commissioner is a reasonable sum for like work at the place of payment is sufficient to warrant the allowance of thedtem as a disbursement properly made to secure the execution of the commission. See S. C. 24 Fed. Rep. 495.

In Admiralty.

*Jas. K. Hill, Wing & Shoudy,*for libelants.

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for the John N. Parker.

1

 Reported by R. D. *&*Wyllys Benedict, Ésqs., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

In the absence of evidence showing the existence at the place of executing a commission to take testimony of a customary rate of charges for services rendered by the commissioner in executing the commission, or for like services, I am of the opinion that proof of the fact that the sum actually paid the commissioner is a reasonable sum to pay for like work at the place of payment will warrant the allowance of the item as a disbursement properly made to secure the execution of the commission. If the decision in the case of *Sedgwick*v. *Grinnell,*10 Ben. 6, was intended to apply to a case where there is no proof of the existence at the place of executing the commission of a customary rate of charges for like services, I am unable to agree with it. In this case the proof is, in my opinion, sufficient to justify the allowance of $130.25 as a proper disbursement to secure the execution of the commission.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00426 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF D .L.R., JR. , D.R, AND M.R., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Swisher County, Texas Trial Court No. B - 11105 - 07 - 06, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding



### May 8 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Appellant R .H. , proceeding pro se , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order of termination . 1 The clerk’s record was due on March 11, 2019. That day, the district clerk notified the court that R.H. had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3(a)(2). By letter of March 14 , we directed R.H. to make acceptable payment arrangements for the clerk’s record by March 25. Failure to do so, we admonished , would subject the appeal to dismissal fo r want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b).

1 The underlying suit was not brought by a governmental entity.2

To date, R.H. has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record or made any response to th is c ourt’s letter . Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and R.H.’ s failure to com ply with a requirement of the appellate rules and an order of the c ourt . T EX . R. A PP . P . 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). Per Curiam
Exhibit 10.42


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE EXPONENT, INC.
401(k) SAVINGS PLAN

(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED JANUARY 1, 2010)


 


WHEREAS, Exponent,
Inc. (the “Company”) adopted an amended and restated 401(k) Savings Plan effective January 1, 2010 (the "Plan");
and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
wishes to amend the Plan in order to bring the Plan into compliance with certain requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and
to correct an inadvertent drafting error contained in the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
retains the right to amend the Plan under Section 11.1(a) thereof; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 11.1(b) of the Plan, the Company has delegated to the Plan’s administrative committee the authority to adopt amendments
that are designed to bring the Plan into compliance with applicable law, designed to ensure the continued tax-qualified status
of the Plan or do not have a significant financial impact on the Company;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January
1, 2010, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.            Section
2.10 of the Plan is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (e) to said Section 2.10 to read as follows:


 


“(e)    Salary
Deferral Contributions may be made only from amounts otherwise described in this Section 2.10 that constitute compensation within
the meaning of Code Section 415(c)(3) and Treasury Regulation Section 1.415(c)(2).”


 


2.             Section
6.11 of the Plan is hereby amended by the deletion of paragraph (b) of said Section 6.11 in its entirety and the substitution in
lieu thereof of a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


 


“(b)    Optional
Forms of Benefit. The Participant may elect substantially-equal annual installments over either (i) the life expectancy
of the Participant or the joint life expectancies of the Participant and his or her Beneficiary; or (ii) a specified period
of years which shall not exceed the Life Expectancy of the Participant or the joint Life Expectancies of the Participant and his
or her Beneficiary, provided, however, Life Expectancy(ies) shall not be recalculated.”


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


 


3.             The
last sentence of subparagraph (a) of Section 14.3 is hereby amended by the deletion of said sentence in its entirety and the substitution
in lieu thereof of a new sentence to read as follows:


 


“In the case
of a distribution made for a reason other than severance from employment, death, or disability, this provision shall be applied
by substituting ‘5-year period’ for ‘1-year period’.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company has caused this Third Amendment to the Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer.


 


	Dated: February 28, 2012	EXPONENT, INC.
	 	By:	/s/ Gregory P.
    Klein
	 	Title: Vice President, Human Resources
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          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 Quarterly Report of First Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, dated
the date of this Certification (the "Report"), I, J. William Plummer, the
President and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The Report 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 results of
            operations of the Company.


Date:  February 13, 2004             By: /s/ J. William Plummer
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         J. William Plummer
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to First Federal Bancorp, Inc., and will be retained by First
Federal Bancorp, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7443** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DOUGLAS LEE STALLWORTH , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00024

- JPJ

- RSB

- 36; 1:13

- cv - 80586

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Douglas Lee Stallworth, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. Bockhorst, Zacha ry T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Kathleen Carnell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Douglas Lee Stallworth seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denying reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies 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 Miller

- 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 di spositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stallworth has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stallworth’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for release, and to strike this court’s scheduling order , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED