alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2053** 

MICHELLE L. STEFANICK , Petitioner ,
v. U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD , Respondent
.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merit System s Protection Board . ( DC

- 1221

- 14

- 0959

- W

- 1 )

Submitted : February 29, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Michelle L. Stefanick, Petitioner Pro Se. Bryan G. Polisuk, General Counsel, Jeffrey Gauger, Office of the General Counsel, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D
. C
. , for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michelle L. Stefanick seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s order dismissing as untimely her whistleblower retaliation appeal. Our review of the record reveals that the MSPB did not err in concluding that Stefanick’s appeal was untimely filed and that equitable tolling was not warranted
. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the MSPB
. Stefanick v. Dep’t of State , No.
DC

- 1221

- 14

- 0959

- W

- 1 (M.S.P.B. July 31, 2015). We grant the Department of State’s motion to amend the caption, leaving the M SPB as the sole respondent. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2) ( 2012). We deny Stefanick’s pending motions. W e 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.

PETITION DENIED
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES ALEXANDER LOGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:19cv3513-MCR-EMT

SGT. MCCRANIE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Chief Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation dated October 10, 2019. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to 

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

6, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:19cv3513-MCR-EMT

2. Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1); 

3. Plaintiff’s state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to his 

pursing them in state court; and

4. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of March 2019.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 23.1
 
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 To the Board of Directors and
 Shareholders of Theragenics Corporation
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Theragenics Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8, file numbers, 333-15313, 333-40653, 333-48136, 333-136640 and 333-165503, and on Form S-3 file numbers 333-127551 and 333-143839, of our reports dated February 25, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the Company’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
 /s/ DIXON HUGHES PLLC
 
 Atlanta, Georgia
 February 25, 2011
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

t0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142411 

JAMES STEVENSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142411 

 COA: 299087 

WCAC: 09-000157 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 1, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 29.6004 Burn.

The duration of combustion or length of time that a tobacco leaf will hold fire after ignition. (See Rule 18.)
EXHIBIT 13.2

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the annual report of Widescope Resources Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  20-F  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2008 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edward
D. Ford,  Director and acting Chief 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:

(1)  the  Report  containing  the  financial  statements  of the  Company  fully
     complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 30, 2009


/s/ Edward D. Ford
--------------------------------------------
Edward D. Ford
Director and acting Chief Accounting Officer

* 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.
#### Jacob M. Shapiro, Respondent, v Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 27, 1979, as granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered November 9, 1978, awarding Aetna the costs of an appeal (see *Shapiro v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*62 AD2d 1016). Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and judgment reinstated. Special Term vacated a judgment for costs ordered by this court in favor of the appellant herein on a prior appeal between the parties. Special Term’s decision was based on CPLR 8301 (subd [a], par 6), which allows printing expenses only when required by statute or by a rule or order of a court or referee (see *Society of N. Y. Hosp. v Mogensen,*81 Mise 2d 1089; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 8301.17). Given that neither CPLR 5529 (subd [a]) nor 22 NYCRR 670.17 (b) require the printing of appellate briefs or records, Special Term’s reasoning would appear to be correct, except for the provisions of CPLR 8301 (subd [a], par 12). That section provides that a party is entitled to tax his "reasonable and necessary expenses” if such expenses are taxable "according to the course and practice of the court”. It has always been the policy of this court to allow printing fees as taxable disbursements, where such fees are reasonable and necessary within the context of the litigation. Since it cannot be said that the printing expenses incurred by the appellant on its prior appeal were either unreasonable or unnecessary, Special Term should not have vacated the judgment for those costs. Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.3059 Stem.

The midrib or large central vein of a tobacco leaf.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, and at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
96- 1154.

#### State ex rel. Baker v. Interstate Cold Storage, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 95APD02-216. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, 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.

1 The district court had jurisdiction over the case, as do we, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The defendants removed this case to federal court alleging that Holbrook, a Mississippi resident, was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Touchberry did not contest removal or the federal court’s jurisdiction.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60779 Summary Calendar

DOROTHY L. TOUCHBERRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COYOTE MISSISSIPPI MALL, LLC, Etc., ET AL.

Defendants,

COYOTE MISSISSIPPI MALL, LLC, ET AL. d/b/a Metrocenter Mall; NINA HOLBROOK,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(Jackson Division) (3:00-cv-109)

-------------------- May 13, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Dorothy L. Touchberry appeals the grant of

summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Coyote

Mississippi Mall, LLC d/b/a Metrocent er Mall (“Coyote”) and Nina

Holbrook, the general manager of Metrocenter Mall. 1 Our d e novo2 We have also considered and rejected Touchberry’s argument

on appeal, casting the destruction of the surveillance camera tape as spoliation of evidence, and insisting that she was entitled to a presumption that the evidence would have been unfavorable to Coyote’s case. We have previously stated that the adverse inference to be drawn from destruction of evidence is predicated on bad conduct of the defendant, Vick v. Texas Employment Commission , 514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1975), and have declined to employ the adverse presumption when “[t]here was indication ... that the records were destroyed under routine procedures without bad faith.” Id. Touchberry offers no evidence to support her assertion that the surveillance tape was destroyed with fraudulent intent, rather than pursuant to the security company’s standard procedure of erasing and recycling tapes that showed nothing noteworthy after they had been held for seven days. We therefore refuse to apply the presumption in the instant case. Accord Washington v. State , 478 So.2d 1028, 1032 (Miss. 1985) (explaining that the negative presumption does not arise “where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent”).

2 review of the district court’s thorough opinion satisfies us that

the court correctly concluded that Touchberry failed to create a

genuine issue of material fact as to two essential elements of her

negligence claim against Coyote and Holbrook, to wit: breach of a

duty and prox imate causation. 2 For the reasons given by the

district court, whose opinion we incorporate by reference, we

affirm that court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for summary judgment

dismissing Touchberry’s action.

AFFIRMED.
98-913.

#### State v. Green.

Lucas C.P. No. 971450. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for extension of time for transmission of the record,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for extension of time for transmission of the record be, and hereby is, denied.
98-1731.

#### Bodnar v. Warren.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cook, J., not participating.
#### § 29.77 Warehousemen to provide tickets.

A mandatory inspection ticket, in the form required by § 29.76 shall be provided by each auction warehouseman on a designated market to cover each lot of tobacco offered for sale at auction by him on such market.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cr11-RH/WCS

ARMANDO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER FOR SCHEDULING OF RESENTENCING

At the telephonic hearing of June 21, 2005, the parties agreed that this matter

should be set for resentencing, and that at the resentencing, either side should be

allowed to argue for a different sentence than originally imposed, based on the

intervening decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Neither

side asserted any objections to the presentence report prior to the original

sentencing. A deadline will now be established for the assertion of objections prior

to the resentencing. The parties have not agreed that objections should now be

entertained, and no ruling is expressed on that issue; the deadline is established by

this order so that each side may know, well in advance of the resentencing, whether

the other side will attempt to assert objections or introduce evidence in support

Case 4:03-cr-00011-RH-WCS Document 66 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:03cr11-RH/WCS

thereof. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. By separate notice, the clerk shall schedule this matter for resentencing.

2. At least 14 days prior to the resentencing hearing, a party that asserts any

objection to the presentence report shall file and serve a notice that (a) states the

nature and basis of each objection, and (b) summarizes the evidence, if any, that

the party intends to introduce in support of the objection. No objection will be

entertained, and no evidence will be received, unless timely disclosed as required

by this paragraph. No such notice need be filed in order to preserve a party’s

ability to assert that, even accepting the facts and guidelines calculation set forth in

the presentence report, a sentence outside the guidelines range should be imposed

under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:03-cr-00011-RH-WCS Document 66 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.13(b)


 


SITEL CORPORATION


 


Summary of Compensation Arrangements


for Non-Employee Directors


(as of January 1, 2005)


 


•                  $30,000 annual
retainer payable in quarterly installments beginning at annual shareholders
meeting


 


•                  $1,500 per
meeting attended (regular, special, committee)


 


•                  $15,000
additional annual retainer for a non-employee Chairman of the Board payable in
quarterly installments beginning at annual shareholders meeting


 


•                  $30,000
additional annual retainer for the Audit Committee chair, $10,000 additional
annual retainer for the Compensation Committee chair and $10,000 additional
annual retainer for the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee chair,
payable in quarterly installments beginning at annual shareholders meeting


 


•                  20,000 options
granted initially to a new director at time of election or appointment, and
10,000 options granted annually to existing directors at time of annual
shareholders meeting


 


•                  At least 50% of
the retainer compensation will be paid in SITEL common stock


 


•                  Directors may
elect to have up to 100% of their monetary compensation paid in SITEL common
stock


 


•                  Directors may
defer their compensation by an annual election pursuant to the 2001 Nonemployee
Directors Compensation Plan.  Deferred
compensation is payable in the company’s common stock in a lump sum following
the termination of the director’s service on the Board or as designated in the
director’s deferral election (subject to any provisions in the 2001 Nonemployee
Directors Compensation Plan)


 


•                  Directors will
also be reimbursed their reasonable expenses of attending meetings
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:03-cr-1-SPM/AK-2

NATALIE COTTON PETERS,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS

Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion for a Writ of Coram

Nobis on behalf of the Defendant (doc. 183). Coram nobis relief is appropriate

only in extraordinary circumstances to correct an error of fundamental character

when there is no other relief available and valid reason for not pursing relief

earlier. Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). In this

case, the Defendant was sentenced in error to 188 months in prison, her

guideline range having been calculated to be 188 months to 235 months, based

on a total offense level of 36. However, the Defendant was entitled to an eightlevel downward adjustment for being a minimal participant in the offense,

bringing her to a total offense level of 28 and a guideline range of 78 to 97
Page 2 of 2

months. The Defendant’s sentence of 188 months was the result of a

fundamental error in the calculation of her applicable guideline range as reflected

in the Pre-Sentence Report. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as

follows: 

1. The Government’s Motion for Writ of Coram Nobis (doc. 183) is

granted.

2. The Probation Office is directed to prepare a new and corrected

Pre-sentence Report.

3. The Defendant will be assigned a date and time to report to Court

for re-sentencing. An attorney will be appointed to represent the

Defendant for this purpose.

DONE AND ORDERED this eighteenth day of September, 2009.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

 

In connection with the annual report of North American Nickel Inc. (formerly Widescope Resources Inc.) (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alex Dann, Chief Financial 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 containing the financial statements of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 18, 2017 |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |
| /s/ Alex Dann             |   |
| Alex Dann                 |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |   |

 

----

* 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.

 

----
# Official Journal C 242/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 242 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5725 July 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 242

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5725 July 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 242/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 242/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7293 — Allergopharma/Stallergenes/Laboratorios LETI/JV) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 242/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons) (1)

1

2014/C 242/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7293 — Allergopharma/Stallergenes/Laboratorios LETI/JV) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2014/C 242/03 | Council Decision of 23 July 2014 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency | 2 |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 242/04 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2014/C 242/03

Council Decision of 23 July 2014 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency

2

European Commission

2014/C 242/04

Euro exchange rates

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i.) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 26, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii.) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 2, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ John H. Kispert                  
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | John H. Kispert                      
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer