alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOGDEN, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7527.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 6, 2002.

Decided June 21, 2002.

Anthony Morales, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Morales appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. 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. *See Morales v. Bogden,*No. CA-01-2240-JFM (D.Md. Aug. 29, 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.*
#### § 20.220 By when must I publish my drug-free workplace statement and establish my drug-free awareness program?

If you are a new recipient that does not already have a policy statement as described in § 20.205 and an ongoing awareness program as described in § 20.215, you must publish the statement and establish the program by the time given in the following table:

| If . . . | then you . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (a) The performance period of the award is less than 30 days | must have the policy statement and program in place as soon as possible, but before the date on which performance is expected to be completed. |
| (b) The performance period of the award is 30 days or more | must have the policy statement and program in place within 30 days after award. |
| (c) You believe there are extraordinary circumstances that will require more than 30 days for you to publish the policy statement and establish the awareness program | may ask the Department of the Treasury awarding official to give you more time to do so. The amount of additional time, if any, to be given is at the discretion of the awarding official. |
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 107

To provide benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan to surviving spouses

of certain members of the Armed Forces retired before September 21, 1972.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To provide benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan to surviving spouses of certain members of the Armed Forces

retired before September 21, 1972.

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

3 That (a) subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) of section

4 5 of the Uniformed Services Survivor Benefits Amend5 ments of 1980 (10 U.S.C. 1448 note) is amended to read

6 as follows:

7 ‘‘(B) had served on active duty in the uni8 formed services for a period of not less than 20

9 years; and’’.
2

•HR 107 IH

1 (b) Subsection (b)(1) of such section is amended by

2 inserting ‘‘to which the member was entitled when he died

3 or’’ after ‘‘retired or retainer pay’’ the second place it

4 appears.

5 SEC. 2. (a) The amendments made by the first sec6 tion of this Act shall take effect on the first day of the

7 second calendar month following the month in which this

8 Act is enacted and shall apply to annuities payable by vir9 tue of such amendments for months beginning on or after

10 such date.

11 (b) No benefits shall accrue to any person by virtue

12 of the enactment of this Act for any period before the ef13 fective date of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERNAL
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                         460,841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,521,160
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,034,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,887,379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,806,535
<PP&E>                                       3,135,396
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,577,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,929,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,312,692
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       145,325
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,357,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,929,592
<SALES>                                     15,305,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,305,599
<CGS>                                        9,721,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,721,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             261,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,645,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,645,841)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,645,841)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
ex10-3.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


CONTINGENT ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT



 


ADDENDUM TO LEASE DATED 16 OF DECEMBER, 2010, BETWEEN HENRY AMALGAMATED LLC, (LESSOR)  ANGIE’S LIST, INC., (LESSEE), And DATED MARCH 1, 2009 (LEASE AGREEMENT) IS MADE AND ENTERED INTO AS OF DECEMBER 15, 2010.


 


WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into the lease agreement dated March 1, 2009 for office space.


 


NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Lease Agreement is hereby modified and amended in the following respects to be effective April 15, 2012. WIT:


 



	  	
1.

	
Paragraph (1) (Description of Premises) Lessor hereby leases additional space known as the following to the lessee:  902 E Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202













	  	
2.

	
Paragraph (4) (Rent) The amount for the additional twenty parking spaces will be $1,140.00 a month.







 


Except as specifically mentioned herein, all other terms and conditions of the original Lease Agreement shall remain the same and unchanged


 


Henry Amalgamated LLC


Lessor



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
/s/ Karl Northern

	  	  	  	
Date:

	  	
4/10/2012







 


Angie’s List, Inc


Lessee



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
/s/ Robert R. Millard

	  	  	  	
Date:

	  	
4/10/2012
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (the”Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Fred P. Lampropoulos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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: May 7, 2010 | /s/ Fred P. Lampropoulos                                                |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | Fred P. Lampropoulos                                                    |
|                   | President and Chief   Executive Officer   (principal executive officer) |

 

 

This certification accompanies the foregoing Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this certification 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.

 

1

----
I, Richard A. Altomare, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Universal
Express, 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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.




                             /S/ RICHARD A. ALTOMARE
                             Richard A. Altomare,
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             and Chief Financial Officer


Dated:   February 18, 2005
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______ __________________ No. 16

- 13065 Non

- Argument Calendar

___________ _____________ D.C. Docket No. 3:16

- cv - 00060

- TCB

ROBERT L. CLARK , Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus GREGORY MCLAUGLIN , Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (March 6, 2018 )

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM , and EDMONDSON , Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Robert Clark, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the denial of what we take as a motion for reconsideration. Th e district court determined that the section 2254 petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. In 2004, Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. Pet itioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Clark
v. State , 629 S.E.2d 103, 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). Petitioner later filed a state habeas petition, which was denied by the state court in October 2010. In 2012, the Georgia Supreme Court then den ied Petitioner a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial. In 2016, Petitioner filed the section 2254 petition at issue in this appeal. The district court committed no error in determining that Petitioner’s 2016 section 2254 petition was seco nd or successive. The record demonstrates that Petitioner filed an earlier section 2254 petition in 2012 that was denied on the merits. Because Petitioner has failed to obtain authorization from this Court to file a second or successive petition, the dis trict court lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s 2016 petition. See Farris v. United States , 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th

Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 2 of 33 Cir. 2003) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.”).
Bec ause we conclude that Petitioner’s 2016 petition was dismissed properly as second or successive, the district court abused no discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover

-- to the extent Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration could be construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

-- Petitioner failed to identify either newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact that would warrant relief. See Arthur v. King , 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRME D. Case: 16-13065 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 3 of 3
# L_2019154EN.01003501.xml

| 12.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 154/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 154/35

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/955

of 22 May 2019

conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Vallegarcía’ (PDO)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Vallegarcía’ sent by Spain and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Vallegarcía’ sent by Spain and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Vallegarcía’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Vallegarcía’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Vallegarcía’ (PDO) is hereby protected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2019.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 57, 13.2.2019, p. 10.

2

---
#### § 7.465-1 Amounts at risk with respect to activities begun prior to effective date; in general.

Section 465 provides that a taxpayer (other than a corporation which is not a subchapter S corporation or a personal holding company) engaged in certain activities may not deduct losses from such activity to the extent the losses exceed the amount the taxpayer is at risk with respect to the activity. For the types of activities to which section 465 applies and for determining what constitutes a separate activity, see section 465(c). Section 465 generally applies to losses attributable to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1975. For the purposes of applying the at risk limitation to activities begun before the effective date of the provision (and which were not excepted from application of the provision), it is necessary to determine the amount at risk as of the first day of the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 1975. The amount at risk in an activity as of the first day of the first taxable year of the taxpayer beginning after December 31, 1975, (for the purposes of § 7.465-1 through 7.465-5 such first day shall be referred to as the effective date) shall be determined according to the rules provided in §§ 7.465-2 through 7.465-5.

[T.D. 7504, 42 FR 42197, Aug. 22, 1977]
Order entered December 19, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01603-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M.C. AND R.B.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-52980-2008

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to review two trial court orders dated December 2, 

2013. One order sustains the court reporter’s contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence and the 

other order “APPROVES the Affidavit” . . . and “ORDER[S] that [appellant] may proceed as a 

pauper in this cause and is not required to pay the filing fees incurred or to give security thereof.” 

In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(j)(3), we ORDER Sheri J. Vecera, 

Official Court Reporter, to file the record of the December 2, 2013 indigency hearing no later 

than December 22, 2013. No extensions will be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j)(4). 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Angela M. Tucker, Presiding Judge, 199th Judicial District Court; Sheri J. Vecera; and 

all parties.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
#### § 14.5 Certification.

Prior to obtaining the requested records pursuant to a formal written request, an official of a rank designated by the head of the requesting Departmental unit shall certify in writing to the financial institution that the Departmental unit has complied with the applicable provisions of the Act.
#### In the Matter of Steven Presti, Appellant, v Kevin Farrell, as Commissioner of the Department of Sanitation of the City of New York, Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 5]

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered November 1, 2002, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s acceptance of petitioner’s advance resignation pursuant to a last chance agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After petitioner tested positive for drugs for a third time, respondent properly accepted petitioner’s resignation from his position as a sanitation worker pursuant to a last chance agreement that he had signed at a prior disciplinary proceeding, and that had provided for automatic resignation upon any subsequent positive test. In the agreement, petitioner, in lieu of termination, knowingly relinquished the right to appeal or otherwise challenge the test results or testing procedures *(see Montiel v Kiley,*147 AD2d 402 [1989]). In any event, petitioner’s chain of custody argument concerning his drug test is without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
H. R. 1051

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To provide for the extension of certain hydroelectric projects located in the State

of West Virginia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would

otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission projects

numbered 6901 and 6902, the Commission shall, upon the request

of the licensee for those projects, in accordance with the good

faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section,

the Commission’s procedures under that section, and the procedures

specified in that section, extend the time period during which the

licensee is required to commence construction of those projects

so as to terminate on October 3, 1999.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect for the

projects upon the expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806),

of the period required for commencement of construction of the

projects.

(c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If a license for a

project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date

of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the license

effective as of the date of its expiration and extend the time required
H. R. 1051—2

for commencement of construction of the project until October 3,

1999.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.