alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6790
JOEL PARKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; RANDALL LEE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-771-HC-5) Submitted: October 2, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joel Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Parker has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Parker v. North Carolina , No. CA-00-771-HC-5 (E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 18, 2001; entered Sept. 19, 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN A. TREVINO Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-36-4
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan A. Trevino appeals the 210-month sentence imposed following his resentencing for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The Government argues that the appeal waiver Trevino signed as a part ofhis plea agreement bars this appeal. During Trevino’s first appeal, this court held that the Government forfeited its ability to invoke Trevino’s appeal waiver by not asking this court to enforce it. See United Statesv. Trevino, 125 F. App’x United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 23, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 05-20599

2 549, 550 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). This determination is the law of the case. Accordingly, Trevino’s appeal waiver does not bar this appeal. Trevino argues that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs it attributed to him for sentencing purposes. Estimates of the amount of drugs in controversy are fact questions, which this court reviews for clear error. United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 831 (5th Cir. 1998). In this case, officers seized 461 kilogramsofmarijuana from Trevino’s property, but thedistrict court held Trevino responsible for an additional 3,846 kilograms of marijuana based on the testimony of a confidential informant. After carefully reviewing the record and considering oral arguments from both parties, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in assessing the confidential informant’s credibility or in using the extrapolation method to calculate the drug quantity it attributed to Trevino. Wealsoreject Trevino’s contention that his sentence violates U nited States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) because it was based upon facts neither proved to
a jury nor admitted by him. As this court has repeatedly held, Booker does not prevent a sentencing judge from finding all facts relevant to sentencing. See , e.g., United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553 (5th Cir 2006). For these reasons, Trevino’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, 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.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are 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:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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):
    /s/ JOHN R. BEAVERJohn R. BeaverSenior Vice President  Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.9

 

AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTE LINE OF CREDIT NOTE

 

	
$12,000,000
    	
 
    	
December 30, 2011
    


 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, GRANITE CITY FOOD & BREWERY LTD., a Minnesota corporation (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to FIFTH THIRD BANK (the “Lender”) at the principal office of Fifth Third Bank, an Ohio banking corporation, as Administrative Agent, in Cincinnati, Ohio, in immediately available funds, the principal sum of Twelve Million and No/100 Dollars ($12,000,000.00) or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Line of Credit Loans made by the Lender to the Borrower pursuant to the Credit Agreement, in installments in the amounts called for by Section 2.7(b) of the Credit Agreement, together with interest on the principal amount of each Line of Credit Loan from time to time outstanding hereunder at the rates, and payable in the manner and on the dates, specified in the Credit Agreement.

 

This Amended and Substitute Line of Credit Note (this “Note”) is one of the Notes referred to in the Credit Agreement dated as of May 10, 2011 among the Borrower, Fifth Third Bank, an Ohio banking corporation, as Administrative Agent and the Lenders party thereto (as extended, renewed, amended, restated, amended and restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), and this Note and the holder hereof are entitled to all the benefits and security provided for thereby or referred to therein, to which Credit Agreement reference is hereby made for a statement thereof.  All defined terms used in this Note, except terms otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meaning as in the Credit Agreement.  This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Illinois.

 

Voluntary prepayments may be made hereon, certain prepayments are required to be made hereon, and this Note may be declared due prior to the expressed maturity hereof, all in the events, on the terms and in the manner as provided for in the Credit Agreement.

 

The Borrower hereby waives demand, presentment, protest or notice of any kind hereunder.

 

This Note amends, supersedes, replaces and is issued as a substitute for, but does not in any way evidence repayment of or constitute a novation with respect to, that certain Amended and Substitute Line of Credit Note dated December 16, 2011, made payable by the Borrower to the Lender in the original principal amount of up to $7,000,000 (the “Existing Note”).  All of the Obligations evidenced by the Existing Note shall hereafter be evidenced by this Note.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this Note to be duly executed and delivered on the date first set forth above by the duly authorized representative of the Borrower.

 

	
 
    	
GRANITE   CITY FOOD & BREWERY LTD., 
   a Minnesota corporation
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   James G. Gilbertson
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
James   G. Gilbertson
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Chief   Financial Officer
    


 

Amended and Substitute Line of Credit Note
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         16,901
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               16,020
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    312,916
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        372,282
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 773,991
<DEPOSITS>                                     684,018
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            13,563
<LONG-TERM>                                    273
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    6
<COMMON>                                       30
<OTHER-SE>                                     76,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 773,991
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                21,757
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              16,965
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               1,619
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               40,341
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             21,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             21,922
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          18,419
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  850
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             66
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                15,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,415
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     5,415
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.34
<LOANS-NON>                                    3,167
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               601
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                5,631
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,960
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  640
<RECOVERIES>                                   183
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2,353
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        2,353
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1020 

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A99-378-387)

Submitted: August 31, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J.

Scadron, Assistant Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation

Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s order of

removal. On appeal, Lopez raises only one issue: that 8 C.F.R.

§ 245a.2(e) (2007), which provides that an application for

legalization under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255a (West 2005 & Supp. 2007) must

be filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“CIS”),

with review to an Administrative Appeals Unit, rather than with an

immigration judge, deprives him of his constitutional rights of due

process of law.

“The Attorney General enjoys broad powers with respect to

‘the administration and enforcement of [the Immigration and

Nationality Act] and all other laws relating to the immigration and

naturalization of aliens.’” Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362

F.3d 272, 279 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3)

(2000)). Aliens have only those rights that Congress, and the

Attorney General as guided by the applicable statutes, elect to

provide them. Id. at 280. Here, the governing regulations place

jurisdiction over legalization applications with the CIS, 8 C.F.R.

§ 245a.2(e), with a single level of appeal in the Administrative

Appeals Unit. 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(p). The Immigration Court and the

Board have no jurisdiction to assess a legalization application or

review its denial. Matter of Singh, 21 I. & N. Dec. 427, 433
- 3 -

(B.I.A. 1996). Lopez was provided with the proper procedures;

therefore, he has received all the process he was due. See Orquera

v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 413, 426 (4th Cir. 2003). (“To state a due

process claim, the [alien] must first demonstrate that [he] ha[s]

a protected interest and [he] ha[s] such an interest only as set

out in [the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] and [8

C.F.R.] § 245a.2[]”). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC.**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,E. Kevin Hrusovsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Companycertify, pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                 The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act;and

 

(2)                 The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Company.

 
|                         | /s/ E. KEVIN HRUSOVSKY                 |   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |                                   |
|                         | E. Kevin Hrusovsky                     |
|                         | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                         | (Principal Executive  Officer)         |
|                         |                                   |
|                         |                                   |
| Date:  November 5, 2010 |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Peter F. McAree, Vice President, Finance and Principal Accounting 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, to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
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 Caliper.

November 9, 2004

                                                             /s/ Peter F. McAree
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                                 Peter F. McAree
                                                     Principal Financial Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Caliper's under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.


                                       33
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 246 

To repeal the provision of law that provides for automatic pay adjustments 

for Members of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2011 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the provision of law that provides for automatic 

pay adjustments for Members of Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUST4 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) 

6 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 

7 31) is repealed. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

9 Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 246 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)’’; 

2 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

3 and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; 

4 and 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘, as adjusted by paragraph (2) 

6 of this subsection’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

9 take effect on December 31, 2012. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO 
 WEST CORPORATION 2006 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN

 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of West Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), adopted the West Corporation 2006 Executive Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) effective as of October 24, 2006; 
 WHEREAS, the Board now desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock which may be awarded under the Plan; 

NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of December 31, 2011, the second sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in
its entirety as follows: 
 “In addition, an aggregate maximum of 38,435,427 shares of Common Stock may be delivered in satisfaction of
other Awards under the Plan; provided that not more than 11,276,291 shares may be delivered in satisfaction of incentive stock options, within the meaning of Section 422 of the Code.”
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2415 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2415

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  11 Dock Street in Pittston, Pennsylvania, as the ``Trooper Joshua D. 
                     Miller Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TROOPER JOSHUA D. MILLER POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 11 Dock Street in Pittston, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Trooper Joshua D. Miller Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Trooper 
Joshua D. Miller Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 NANCY SHANKS and ARTHUR SHANKS,

3 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

4 v. NO. 32,295

5 SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P.,

6 d/b/a COTTONWOOD SHOPPING 

7 MALL, FEDERAL BUILDING 

8 SERVICES, INC.,

9 Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY

11 Louis P. McDonald, District Judge 

12 Peter Everett IV

13 Albuquerque, NM 

14 for Appellants/Cross Appellees

15 Law Office of Marcus Garcia

16 Marcus E. Garcia

17 Albuquerque, NM 

18 for Appellees/Cross Appellants

19 MEMORANDUM OPINION

20 VANZI, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 __________________________________

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

11 _________________________________

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge