alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roshon E. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-35891.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Joseph Hilary Harrington, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roshon E. Thomas, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Roshon E. Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion for relief from final judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Thomas contends the district court erred by denying his Rule 60(b) motion, which alleged that the district court failed to address six of the claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court properly concluded that Thomas’ motion was, in effect, an unauthorized second or successive motion under § 2255. *See 28*U.S.C. § 2244(a); *Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 532 & n. 4, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005).

To the extent that Thomas’ contentions may be construed as a request for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, *see Cooper v. Calderon,*274 F.3d 1270, 1275 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), such a request is denied because Thomas has not made the requisite showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

Thomas’ request to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see *also Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

*187Thomas’ motion to expedite is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
Certification of Chief Administrative Officer
I, Steven A. Schumm, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Enstar Income/Growth Program Five-A, L.P.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash 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 maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure control and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on suchevalutation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. Date: April 13, 2004 /s/ Steven A. SchummSteven A. SchummExecutive Vice President andChief Administrative Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

December 1, 2015

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 10, 2015

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session:

Secretary of Labor v. AK Coal Resources, Inc., Docket No. PENN 

2014-159

Secretary of Labor v. Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC, Docket No. 

WEVA 2014-963

Secretary of Labor v. James L. Deck, Docket No. SE 2014-322-M

Secretary of Labor v. BCJ Sand & Rock, Inc., Docket No. WEST 

2015-7-M

Secretary of Labor v. E & G Masonry Stone #2, Docket No. CENT 

2015-21-M

Secretary of Labor v. U.S. Silver – Idaho, Inc., Docket No. WEST 

2015-717-M

Secretary of Labor v. Apogee Coal Co., LLC, Docket No. WEVA 

2014-632

Secretary of Labor v. Campbell Redi-Mix, Inc., Docket Nos. 

WEST 2014-917-M and WEST 2014-918-M

(Issues include whether motions to reopen the cases should be 

granted by the Commission.)
Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.102

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount:   $161,000.00                                     Date: July 30, 1993

         For value received, I, Donald A. Livingston (the "Maker"), an employee
of Environmental Power Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
hereby promise to pay the Company ON DEMAND the principal amount of One Hundred
Sixty-One Thousand Dollars & 00/100 ($161,000.00) with interest (computed on the
basis of a 360 day year of twelve 30-day months) payable from the date hereof on
the unpaid balance of such principal amount, such interest to be payable
monthly.

         The interest payable on this Note shall track the Applicable Federal
"short-term monthly" Rate as defined in Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended.

         As security for payments to be made by the Maker pursuant to this Note,
the Company shall retain custody of, and a security interest in, the certificate
or certificates representing 1,150,000 Shares of the Company's Common Stock,
such security interest to lapse at such time as all of the obligations of the
Maker under this Note have been satisfied in full or the Note has been canceled.

         The Company shall have full recourse against the Maker for collection
and payment of the debt evidenced by this Note and may seek personal judgment
against the Maker for payment of this Note.

         All or any part of the principal and accrued interest may be prepaid at
anytime without the payment of any penalty or premium.

         In case any payment herein provided shall not be paid when due, the
Maker further promises to pay all costs at collection, including all attorney's
fees.

         This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of New Hampshire and shall have the effect of a sealed
instrument.

         The Maker and all endorsers and guarantors of this Note hereby waive
presentment, demand, notice of nonpayment, protest and all other demands and
notices in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance or enforcement
of the Note.

                                         Maker


                                         /s/ Donald A. Livingston
                                         -----------------------
                                         Donald A. Livingston
Directors Compensation


    Exhibit
      10.19

    


    


    On
      June 1, 2006, the Board of Directors of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage
      Corporation made the following changes to director compensation effective
      immediately:

    


    	·  	
            The
              annual retainer payable to directors was increased from $12,500 to
              $14,000.

          


     

    	·  	
            The
              per diem for attending Board and Committee meetings was increased from
              $750 per day to $1,000 per day.

          


     

    	·  	
            The
              annual retainer payable to the Chairman of the Board was increased
              from
              $17,500 to $21,500.

          


     

    	·  	
            The
              annual retainer payable to the Chairman of the Audit Committee was
              increased from $15,000 to $19,000.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

NASIR HASSAN SALEEM JR.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 527 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Order entered December 21, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01202-CV

IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF STEVEN EDWARD MENDOZA

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV1770003

ORDER

Before the Court is the December 19, 2018 request of Debi Harris, Deputy Court 

Reporter for the 363rd Judicial District Court, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s 

record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to December 28, 2018.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### David Allen JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael MCCALL, Warden, Perry CI, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7062.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 9, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 1, 2010.

David Allen Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Allen Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones 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.*
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

March 10, 2014

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 20, 2014

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Connolly-Pacific Co., Docket 

Nos. WEST 2011-1064-RM, et al. (Issues include whether the 

Administrative Law Judge erred in applying certain standards to 

the operator’s stone and rock mining operations.) 

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
* 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

August 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50326

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN JOSE GUARDIOLA-BARRIOS 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2337-ALL

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgmentin a Criminal Case, Juan Jose Guardiola-Barrios

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision

and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00067

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

Teresita CRUZ

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI05398 Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on April 23, 2019. No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justic e

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

court on this 8th day of April, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Cler k of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Susan Elaine BARKER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-10138.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 7, 2010.

Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jack L. Lansdale, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Jack L. Landsdale, Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Susan Elaine Barker appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised release. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Barker’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                QUIKSILVER, INC.

                     NAMES AND JURISDICTIONS OF SUBSIDIARIES


          Subsidiary Name                       Jurisdiction
          ---------------                       ------------

          QS Retail, Inc.                         California
          Mervin Manufacturing, Inc.              California
          Mt. Waimea, Inc.                        California
          Quiksilver Wetsuits, Inc.               California
          Na Pali, S.A.                               France
          Kokolo SARL                                 France
          Emerald Coast Europe                        France
          Infoborn SARL                               France
          Cariboo, Eurl                               France
          Lanai                               United Kingdom
          Gen X Publishing Ltd.               United Kingdom
          Molokai Ltd.                        United Kingdom
          Emerald Coast Limited               United Kingdom
          Kauai GmbH                                 Germany
          Sumbawa SL                                   Spain
          Haapiti, SRL                                 Italy
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Francis L. Simola, Chairman, President and CEO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date: October 13, 2005



/s/ Francis L. Simola

Francis L. Simola

Chairman, President and CEO



























































---
**EXHIBIT 12**
 **PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION**
 
 **COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**
 
 
 *Year Ended***October 2,**
**2004**

**September 27,**
**2003**

**September 28,**
**2002**

**September 29,**
**2001**

**September 30,**
**2000***(amounts in thousands, except ratio)*EARNINGS:Income before income taxes




$
208,535




$
63,235




$
1,910




$
61,861




$
62,786Add: Total fixed charges (see below)





68,675





51,126





49,801





48,406





29,168Less: Interest Capitalized





(1,714
)




(1,535
)




(6,014
)




(7,153
)




(3,313
)Total Earnings




$
275,496




$
112,826




$
45,697




$
103,114




$
88,641FIXED CHARGES:Interest (1)




$
57,657




$
41,835




$
40,444




$
38,852




$
21,712Portion of rental expense representative of the
interest factor (2)





11,018





9,291





9,357





9,554





7,456Total fixed charges




$
68,675




$
51,126




$
49,801




$
48,406




$
29,168Ratio of earnings to fixed charges





4.01





2.20





(3
)




2.13





3.04(1) Interest includes amortization of capitalized financing fees.(2) One-third of rental expenses is assumed to be representative of the interest factor.(3) Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges by $4,104.
EX-10.4.o






Exhibit 10.4.o




SEVENTH AMENDMENT

TO THE

FMC TECHNOLOGIES INC.

INCENTIVE COMPENSATION AND STOCK AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the Company”) maintains the FMC Technologies Inc. Incentive
Compensation and Stock Plan; and



WHEREAS, the Company now deems necessary and desirable to amend the Plan to include a clawback
provision in the event the Company’s financial statements are restated because of errors, omissions
or fraud;



NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority reserved to the Board of Directors of the Company by
Section 17 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of October 4, 2007 as follows:



The text of Section 16, FORFEITURE OF AWARDS, is hereby amended to read as follows:



“Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, the Committee may, in the event of
serious misconduct by a participant (including, without limitation, any misconduct prejudicial to
or in conflict with the Company or its Affiliates, or any Termination of Employment for Cause), or
any activity of a participant in competition with the business of the Company or any Affiliate, (a)
cancel any outstanding Award granted to such participant, in whole or in part, whether or not
vested or deferred, and/or (b) if such conduct or activity occurs within one year following the
exercise or payment of an Award, require such participant to repay to the Company any gain realized
or payment received upon the exercise or payment of such Award (with such gain or payment valued as
of the date of exercise or payment). Additionally, in the event the Company’s financial statements
are restated as a result of errors, omissions or fraud, the Committee may, in good faith and to the
extent an Award exceeds what would otherwise have been awarded based on the restated financial
results, (a) cancel any outstanding Award granted, in whole or in part, whether or not vested or
deferred, to officers of the Company who are identified as being subject to Section 16 of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Section 16 Officers), and/or (b) if such restatement occurs
after the exercise or payment of such Award, require such Section 16 Officer to repay to the
Company any gain realized or payment received upon the exercise or payment of such Award (with such
gain or payment valued as of the date of exercise or payment). Cancellations and repayment
obligations will be effective as of the date specified by the Committee. Any repayment obligation
may be satisfied in Common Stock or cash or a combination thereof (based upon the Fair Market Value
of Common Stock on the day of payment), and the Committee may provide for an offset to any future
payments owed by the Company or any Affiliate to the participant if necessary to satisfy the
repayment obligation. The determination of whether a participant has engaged in a serious breach
of conduct or any activity in competition with the business of the Company or any Affiliate will be
made by the Committee in good faith. This Section 16 will have no application following a Change
in Control.”