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**UNPUBLISHED**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

**No. 11-1249**

DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Chief Judge, US District Court for the District of Maryland; CHARLES B. DAY, Magistrate Judge, US D istrict Court for the District of Maryland; PETER J. MESSITTE, Judge, US District Court for the District of Maryland; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK ’ S OFFICE; TRAXLER, Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; AGEE, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt . Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cv-00627-AW)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the re cord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court
. Jarvis v. Chasanow , No. 8:11

- cv - 00627

- AW (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2011) ; see Briscoe v. LaHue , 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983) (noting that quasi

- judicial immunity a ccorded to individuals who play integral part in judicial process); Johnson v. Turner , 125 F.3d 324, 332 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding clerk’ s office employees, acting as a judge’s designee, are entitled to quasi

- judicial immunity)
. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
  
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2

                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
                                                   ------------------------------------------
                                                      NUMBER        PERCENT        EQUIVALENT
                                                     OF SHARES     OUTSTANDING       SHARES
                                                   -----------     -----------     ----------
<S>                                                <C>             <C>             <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                              2,300,000          100.00%     2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                             731,072           98.10%       717,194
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock        15,310,943          100.00%    15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                      11,242,857          100.00%    11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                       4,323,874          100.00%     4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                        6,000,000          100.00%     6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued           75,891           77.24%        58,621
   1997 Warrants Exercised                              48,300          100.00%        48,300
                                                  ------------                   ------------
                                                    40,032,937                     40,001,789

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                40,001,789

NET LOSS                                                                         $(10,126,000)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                               $      (0.25)
                                                                                 ============
</TABLE>
# C_2015389EN.01005601.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/56

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2015 — Kafetzakis and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T-38/14) (1)

1

((Application for failure to act and for damages - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Involvement of the private sector - Harm resulting from the reduction of bonds provided as a redundancy payment - Statements of heads of State or governments of the Euro zone and of EU institutions - Statement of the Eurogroup - Lack of substantiation of causality with the alleged harm - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 389/63)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Georgios Kafetzakis (Athens, Greece) and the 102 other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to the order (represented by: C. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); European Council; Eurogroup; Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, M. Balta and E. Dumitriu Segnana, acting as Agents); European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. P. Keppenne and B. Smulders, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: P. Papapaschalis and P. Senkovic, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application for (i) a declaration that the defendants unlawfully failed to adopt the necessary legislative measures for ensuring that the bonds held by the applicants as employees made redundant by Olympiaki Aeroporia would not be affected by the private sector involvement in the debt relief programme plan (PSI), reducing the value of Greek State debt, and (ii) damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants resulting from that unlawful failure to act.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Mr. Georgios Kafetzakis and the 102 other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr. Georgios Kafetzakis and the 102 other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.

1

---
38989.

#### BARROW v. JAMES.

Decided September 6, 1961.

*Walter 0. Allanson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Edwards, Bentley, Awtrey Ac Bartlett, Scott S. Edwards, Jr.,*contra.

Bell, Judge.

The main thrust of the defendant’s contention that the general demurrer was properly sustained is upon the principle that the petition shows that the plaintiff tried to' ne*346gotiate a totally dark stairway, and that she stepped off onto the top step in the darkness and thus was not exercising ordinary. care for her own safety.

The relevant portions of the petition read as follows: “6. Your petitioner shows that in this residence, all bedrooms are upstairs and that on the morning of January 14th, 1960, at approximately 7:30 a.m., and before it became daylight, the telephone, which was located downstairs, rang and your petitioner got up to answer the telephone so that the defendant would not be required to get out of bed; and, as she approached the top of the stairs from her bedroom, she reached for the light switch and at the same time stepped on the top step; and, due to the tread on the top step being loose and defective, the tread tilted, which threw your petitioner off balance and caused her to fall down the stairs and up against the wall at the landing. 7. Your petitioner shows that she did not know of the defect in this top step and such defect could not have been determined by her by an ordinary examination; but, only by a close personal examination of said step and the defendant had not informed her that said step tread was loose and defective.”

The petition further charged that the defendant had knowledge of the defect.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition clearly reveal that the right of recovery is based upon the negligence involved in the allegation having to do with the loose and defective top step tread. The petition is not subject to the construction that it was due to the darkened condition of the stairway that the injury occurred. Upon proper proof of the allegations of the petition a jury question would be presented, and it was error for the trial court to sustain the general demurrer and dismiss the petition.

The cases cited by the defendant on negligence of persons walking in darkened or dimly-lit stairways such as *Hendricks v. Jones,*28 Ga. App. 335 (111 SE 81) are neither pertinent nor controlling here. In those cases the danger could have.been discovered by more light. Under the facts averred in the present petition, the alleged defect in the top step tread would not have been made apparent by light. Thus the degree of darkness present in this case as a matter of law is immaterial and. cannot be *347held in law to be determinative of the issue of liability. As Paragraph 7 of the petition states in part, “Such defect could not have been determined by her by an ordinary examination.”

According to the facts alleged in the petition, the plaintiff was not, as a matter of law, contributorily negligent in stepping on the top tread of the stairway in the dark. The trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
# C_2015026EN.01002001.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/20

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council

(Case C-535/14 P)

(2015/C 026/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Vadzim Ipatau (represented by: M. Michalauskas, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 (Case T-646/11), |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 (Case T-646/11),

| — | give final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment,

| — | order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

In the first place, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the right to effective judicial protection by denying the filing of an application for legal aid any suspensory effect on the period prescribed for bringing an action for annulment against the contested measure.

In the second place, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed his rights of defence. The General Court held that the Council was not required to disclose to the appellant the evidence against him, nor required to give him the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 (2).

1

2

In the third place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the grounds set out in the contested measures were sufficient.

In the last place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the contested measures were not disproportionate.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7).

2

---
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.3110a Chromium-cobalt-aluminum oxide. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive chromium-cobalt-aluminum oxide (Pigment Blue 36) (CAS Reg. No. 68187-11-1, Colour Index No. 77343) shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 73.1015 (a) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) The substance listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as a color additive in contact lenses in amounts not to exceed the minimum reasonably required to accomplish the intended coloring effect.
( 2 ) Authorization for this use shall not be construed as waiving any of the requirements of sections 510(k), 515, and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) with respect to the contact lens in which the color additive is used.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore the color additive is exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[53 FR 41325, Oct. 21, 1988]
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.37

                   Amendment to the BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.
                             1999 Stock Option Plan


Paragraph 11 of the BankAtlantic Bancorp 1996 Stock Option Plan was replace with
the following paragraph:

         11.     TRANSFERABILITY OF OPTIONS.

                 During an Optionee's lifetime, an Option may be
                 exercisable only by the Optionee and an Option granted
                 under the Plan and the rights and privileges conferred
                 thereby shall not be subject to execution, attachment,
                 or similar process and may not be sold, pledged,
                 assigned, hypothecated, transferred, or otherwise
                 disposed of in any manner (whether by operation of law
                 or otherwise) other than by will or by the laws of
                 descent and distribution. Notwithstanding the
                 foregoing to the extent permitted by applicable law
                 and rule 16(b)-3, the Committee may determine that any
                 Stock Option may be transferred by an Optionee to any
                 of the following:


                  (1)      a family member of the Optionee;

                  (2)      a Trust established primarily for the benefit of the
                           Optionee and/or a family member of said Optionee;

                  (3)      any charitable organization exempt from income tax
                           under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code (collectively, a
                           "Transferee").

                  Any other attempt to sell, pledge, assign, hypothecate,
                  transfer or otherwise dispose of any Option under the Plan or
                  of any right or privilege conferred thereby, contrary to the
                  provisions of the Plan, or the sale or levy or any attachment
                  or similar process upon the rights and privileges conferred
                  hereby shall be null and void.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; BTRC P41 Review.                    

*Date:*                         February 22-23, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         6 p.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Manana Sukhareva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3397,                         *sukharem@mail.nih.gov.*

Dated: December 28, 2010.

Anna P. Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-33237 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.0



CERTIFICATION AS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF

2002



In connection with
the Annual Report of 1stIndependence Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the three
month fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Arthur L. Freeman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, N. William White, President, and R. Michael
Wilbourn, Executive Vice President and CFO, 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/ Arthur L. Freeman                                 |  | /s/ N. William White       |  | /s/ R. Michael Wilbourn                                                                                          
|Arthur L Freeman Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer |  | N. William White President |  | R. Michael Wilbourn Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer (Chief Financial and Accounting
Officer)



March 29, 2005
: .,

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Art1010 684sI, 

### 900. Oitll Statatw, 19S5, aa l end **roil088** t

00 •~ **r0mnt** . . . . 8norl ooh oh114 thelPP l r .OO) per monthoat11 mob o&lld 

### or l lgbteea (18) rear81

. . .*

r lottar 

### l

kla( 98 to wnrtr# tbl8 

### l tattutory prorlrlon 1s 

### a8 ronon:.

immrablo Mama sattwrlel4 - pa&at

l ultb 

### furlher rorennor to roar 

### raoent oplnloa In 8bloh you rtato that slnora wba are ratltlcrd to r ywn88 te boner ta wdor Artlole It48-• aboold be ~4e to tbo guer61aa 

### or the wtate, If oao, mid Ii aat than ~to t&e ooaaty olart.. WI* quaatlon now arirra a1 to wbetbor or not 

### asob payment l bs~ld ba roaaldrred 

### l eprratoly or oollootlval~. Tvr lnstraoe mob oblld la mtltlad to @3.00 par month rhioh would amount to ror a 4 par prriod l d tbIa mount wou P d rroood tbr. 3SSOMSIWB ubloh auy k pal6 to the nglrtry of tbe aourt.

your *In rlew of 8harbove w wnrla rppreolata ruling on tJn ~ol~oorI~ qu~atIoner

‘1. Should rtoh mat4l~ paymat Do

### oonrieerd aeprretoly? l t. If aeoh mcatbly prrwnt MT b oonaidord aeparatolt, mndlt la obWm8, fromthe sue vi the ohlld, that pa~ntm to It aelleetIre4 will mount to mm tbon $250, box l bould the **poywnta be**  **wdo and**  **te ubom,**  sbero so **~uardlan** Or tba estate he8 been rppolntOd?” Then la no prorl sum rettlrwnt 

### 0r thaae **hen** la la 

### rue a wpmete pafw rlair. 

### Eorawr, we sea no kn0rit8 to tb8 0000tr imr for the us0 and knerit or borna !B

### MiB&

the t Wdet’ th l utborltti to bold wro tba am$bl~ 

### prpwata in th fun tlon IO the stat&o 

### for a leap 

### at8 an4 l

aoh wnthly pqmat 

### It l rlainc. from a llqoldrted tbJeotlon to the pa nt 0r aurh :wider utlole U1r4, V.A.C.8.. ibe 

### nlnerl but, It should be ,a 

### l tlole, the Ol*rk la not L$250.00 of the rooumulated la or the rimor 

### ot my we tlu..

As 8 prrotloml nabtor, due to tb* o-11 lnrtmllmenta Intoltd hen, the l r paoea

orwklng

l **epar~ta** rltbdr~ralr wulJ ba prohlbltlro on&while both foma of rlt&drawala - I.e., by re&or (Irrrrdlauhip 

### or an

### der tbo grootiun 

### 0r brtlole Ulba, V.r.0.s. -- me pomlaslb1r, w **thlsk** l (uardlmahlp rd+la~ble ln this 

### OaU. 3lnoo w 

### katoheld that **then** lpoathly paJmnt8 are to be aonrldorad reporate paymnt8, it 18not moeIl arr for us to 8n8wer your moon4 q\ii8tlOn. Your8 **tory truly** 

Dar14 ?iuntoh Aaalctmt