alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robb M. HARKSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEFENDANTS; R.A. Young, Regional Director; Unknown Law Enforcement Officer; S.K. Young, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; Mr. Harvey, Assistant Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison; D.A. Taylor, Captain; Sergeant Givens; Sergeant O’Quinn; Correctional Officer Hamilton; Teresa Johnson, Nurse; Ron Angelone; Doctor Bailey; Nurse Ballard; Correctional Officer Boggs; S. Clingman; Correctional Officer Cochran; Lieutenant Compton; Isaac Woody Daily, II; Sergeant Davidson; R.N. Duncan; Sergeant Elam; Nurse Eskridge, LPN; Nurse Fraley, LPN; Lieutenant Galihar; M. Glass, Psychologist; Sergeant Hamilton; Nurse Harbor, LPN; Awo Harvey; Sergeant Head; Correctional Officer Hicks; Captain Hockett; P. Hughes; Gene Johnson; Correctional Officer Jones; D. Jones, Psychologist; H. Jordan; Correctional Officer Kern; Correctional Officer Lingerfelt; E. Looney, MD; Nurse McCurry, LPN; Nurse McNeil; J. Moore, Correctional Officer (1); J. Moore, Correctional Officer (2); Doctor Ohai; Counselor Monk; Sergeant Meyer; J. Perkins, Psychologist; R. Phillips, AWP; B.J. Ravize; Correctional Officer Reed; Fred Shillings, MD; W. Smith, Correctional Officer; K. Snyder, Lieutenant; Correctional Officer Stacy; Ser*663geant Stanley; Doctor Tatro; Warden True; Doctor Wagner; F. Wilkins, Sergeant; Correctional Officer Young; R.A. Young; S.A. Young, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6484.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

Robb M. Harksen, Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice some but not all of Harksen’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Harksen’s motion for a ruling on a motion in the district court. 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.*
Exhibit 10.10


AMENDMENT TO INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LEASE


UNIQUE BUILDING CORPORATION, as Lessor, and ZEBRA
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, as Lessee, hereby agree to amend that Industrial
Building Lease dated May 15, 1989 pertaining to the property commonly
known as 333 Corporate Woods Parkway, Vernon Hills, Illinois, as follows:


1.     In
consideration of improvements made by the Lessor consisting of as 50,400 square
foot expansion of manufacturing space and an 11,500 square foot expansion of
office space, the monthly rental payable pursuant to the terms and conditions
of the said Lease shall be increased according to the following table on the
dates indicated:


	
  Description

  	
   

  	
  Beginning

  	
   

  	
  and Ending

  	
   

  	
  Rent Shall Be Increased By

  
	
  50,400 square foot factory

  	
   

  	
  12/1/94

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3/31/98

  	
   

  	
  $14,998/mo

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  41/98

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3/31/03

  	
   

  	
  $16,991/mo

  	
   

  
	
  11,500 square foot
  building

  	
   

  	
  4/1/95

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3/31/98

  	
   

  	
  $2,889/mo

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  4/1/98

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3/31/03

  	
   

  	
  $3,236/mo

  	
   

  
	
  Parking lot

  	
   

  	
  8/15/94

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3/31/98

  	
   

  	
  $2,151/mo

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  4/1/98

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3/31/03

  	
   

  	
  $2,463/mo

  	
   

  



 


2.     The
effective date of this Amendment shall be December 1, 1994.


3.     Except
as they may have been modified by anything set forth in this Amendment, all of
the terms and provisions of the said Lease are hereby ratified and confirmed by
the parties hereto as being in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have sat
their hands and seals this 1st day of December, 1994.


	
  ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

  	
  UNIQUE BUILDING CORPORATION,

  
	
  Lessee

  	
  Lessor

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Gerhard Cless

  	
   

  	
  Edward Kaplan

  
	
   

  	
  Secretary

  	
   

  	
  President
|(well fargo logo) | Corporate
                                         Trust Services



MAC R1204-010

9062 Old Annapolis
Road

Columbia, MD 21045



Tel: 410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Credit Suisse First
Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C3
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”),
the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (“Wells Fargo”),
hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”):



(a) A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the Reporting
Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such
review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.



March 1, 2016



|/s/ Brian Smith | 
|--------------- | 
|BRIAN SMITH     | 
|Vice President  | 



|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (GRAPHIC)
|---------------------- | ---------
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant toSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedPresident & Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certifies, that to their knowledge:

 

1)             theCompany’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78*o*(d)); and

 

2)             theinformation contained in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/Martin J.  Reid                       |                     | /s/William  J. Schmidt |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Martin J.  Reid                          | William J.  Schmidt      |
| President  & Chief Executive Officer | Chief  Financial Officer |
|                                     |                     |
| Date: August  12, 2004                   | Date: August  12, 2004   |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 13, 2024

No. 04

- 23

- 01095

- CV

Daniel BULLARD

, Appellant

v.

Shannon HUDSON

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023CV06019

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION. We order that no costs be assessed against appellant because he qualifies as

indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.

It is so ORDERED on March 13, 2024

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 13th day of March, 2024

.

_____________________________ Tommy Stolhandsk e , Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GREGORY VONZELL COMER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-95-69)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 7, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Vonzell Comer, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Vonzell Comer appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. §

3582(c)(2) (West 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Comer, No. CR-95-69 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-639V 

Filed: January 12, 2016 

Not for Publication

************************************* 

SHERRY KACHMARIK, * 

 * 

Petitioner, * 

* Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on 

 * stipulation of fact

v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* 

************************************* 

Michael D. Bell, Toledo, OH, for petitioner. 

Althea W. Davis, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On January 12, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that she did not 

incur any costs in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner submitted a draft application for attorneys’ 

fees and costs to respondent. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain 

items in petitioner’s application. Petitioner now requests reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.

 
costs in the amount of $11,010.00. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned 

finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $11,010.00, representing 

reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check payable 

jointly to petitioner and Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaffer Co., L.P.A. in the amount of 

$11,010.00. 

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 12, 2016 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

2

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

2
----

Order of the President of the Court of 31 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-107/06) (1)

(2006/C 294/74)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

----
WWW.EXFILE.COM, INC. -- 14949 -- BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. -- EXHIBIT 10.24 TO FORM 10-K


     

    EXHIBIT
      10.24


    FIRST
      AMENDMENT OF THE BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION 

    2006
      GLOBAL EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 

    (U.S.
      PLAN DOCUMENT)

    


    


    WHEREAS,
      Boston Scientific Corporation (the “Company”) has established and maintains the
      2006 Boston Scientific Corporation Global Employee Stock Ownership Plan (U.S.
      Plan Document) (the “Plan”); and

     

    WHEREAS,
      it is now considered desirable to amend the Plan; 

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the power reserved to the Company by
      Section 5 of the Plan, and pursuant to the authority delegated to the
      undersigned officer of the Company by resolution of its Board of Directors,
      the
      Plan be and it is hereby amended, effective for the Offering Period beginning
      July 1, 2007, by substituting for Section 8.3 of the Plan the
      following:

     

    “The
      purchase price of Option Shares shall be the lesser of: (a) ninety percent
      (90%)
      of the Fair Market Value of the Stock on the Offering Commencement Date; or
      (b)
      (whichever is applicable) (1) ninety percent (90%) of the Fair Market Value
      of
      the Stock on the Offering Termination Date, if the Stock is acquired from the
      Company; or (2) ninety percent (90%) of the actual purchase price for such
      Stock
      on the Investment Date, if the Stock is, in fact, purchased on the New York
      Stock Exchange.”

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by its
      duly authorized officers, this ______ day of December, 2006.

     

    
 

    
      	 	
              BOSTON
                SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

              By:

              
                

              

              Its:

              
                

              

            
	
              ATTEST:

               

              By:

              
                

              

               

              Its:
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

The regulations contained in this part have been recodified in 46 CFR part 287.

#### § 2.1-16 Tax liability as to earnings deposited.

Deposit in the construction reserve fund of earnings from the operation of a vessel or vessels, or receipts, in the form of interest or otherwise, with respect to amounts previously deposited does not exempt the taxpayer from tax liability with respect thereto nor postpone the time such earnings or receipts are includible in gross income. Earnings and receipts deposited in a construction reserve fund established in accordance with the provisions of section 511 of the Act and the regulations in this part will be deemed to have been accumulated for the reasonable needs of the business within the meaning of part 1 (section 531 and following), Subchapter G, Chapter I of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, so long as the requirements of section 511 of the Act and the regulations in this part are satisfied relative to the use of the fund in the construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, or acquisition of new vessels, or for the liquidation of purchase-money indebtedness on such vessels. For incurrence of tax liability due to noncompliance with the requirements of section 511 of the Act and the regulations in this part with respect to deposits in the construction reserve fund, see the provisions of § 2.1-23.
§ 1.987-6T Character and source of section 987 gain or loss (temporary). ( a ) through ( b ) (3) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-6(a) through (b)(3). (4) *Source of section 987 gain or loss with respect to a dollar QBU.* The source of section 987 gain or loss with respect to a dollar QBU (as defined in § 1.987-1T(b)(6)(i)) for which the CFC owner has elected under § 1.987-1T(b)(6)(iii) to apply section 987 is determined by reference to the residence of the CFC owner. This paragraph (b)(4) applies to any CFC that has made the election under § 1.987-1T(b)(6)(iii), including a CFC described in § 1.987-1(b)(1)(ii).
( c ) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-6(c).
( d ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to taxable years beginning on or after one year after the first day of the first taxable year following December 7, 2016. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a taxpayer makes an election under § 1.987-11(b), then this section applies to taxable years to which §§ 1.987-1 through 1.987-10 apply as a result of such election.
( e ) *Expiration date.* The applicability of this section expires on December 6, 2019.
[T.D. 9795, 81 FR 88874, Dec. 8, 2016]
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 31, 2014

No. 04-14-00753-CR

Sherri Dee BUCHANS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7558

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The court reporter’s motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record is 

GRANTED. Time is extended to January 16, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41748 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PLUTARCO OLVERA VERDIN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-389-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plutarco Olvera Verdin appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Verdin contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Verdin maintains that he pleaded guilty to anNo. 02-41748 -2- indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Verdin acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Gary M. DeLaurentiis, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Itec Environmental Group, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



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):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 17, 2004.



/s/  Gary M. De Laurentiis

Gary M. De Laurentiis

Chief Executive Officer

Acting Chief Financial Officer