alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6589

RONNIE K. BROOKING,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MAHON, Warden, Mr.,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00087-jct-mfu)

Submitted: September 24, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie K. Brooking, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie K. Brooking seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Brooking has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Apollo Debt Solutions BDC (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:



1. the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 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 Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: March 16, 2023

|    |                        
|--- | -----------------------
|By: | /s/ Amit Joshi         
|    | Amit Joshi             
|    | Chief Financial Officer





---
Jump to main content.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ELECTRONIC RETAILING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          63,877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (352)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,908
<PP&E>                                           5,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,462)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,211
<BONDS>                                        124,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           212
<OTHER-SE>                                    (54,742)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,626
<SALES>                                          2,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,764
<CGS>                                            8,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,886
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,313)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
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

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee scheduled for October 6, 2009, is cancelled. This meeting was announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 25, 2009 (74 FR 42907). The October 6, 2009, Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting was to discuss ApoPharma, Inc.'s new drug application (NDA) 021-825 for proposed trade name FERRIPROX (deferiprone) film-coated tablets. This meeting has been cancelled to allow time for FDA to review and resolve several outstanding issues. The agency intends to continue evaluating NDA 021-825 and, as needed, may schedule an advisory committee meeting in the future.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Nicole Vesely, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-6793, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail:                         *nicole.vesely@fda.hhs.gov*, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 3014512542. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.                    

Dated: September 28, 2009.

David Horowitz,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-23764 Filed 10-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
EX-4.a



 CONTRACT DATA PAGE 

Contract Number:
[P9999999999]                        Contract Date: [May 2, 2011] 

 

			
	 Owner: [JOHN DOE]
		 [Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976]      Age at Issue: [35]]

		
	 [Owner: [JANE DOE]
		 Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976]        Age at Issue: [34]]

		
	 Annuitant: [JOHN DOE]
		 Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976]       Age at Issue: [35]

		
	 [Annuitant: [JANE DOE]
		 Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976]        Age at Issue: [34]]


 Beneficiary: As named by You 

Initial Purchase Payment: [$10,000.00] 

Purchase Payment Age Limit: [Prior to the 86th birthday] 

Minimum Subsequent Purchase Payment: [$500] 

Fixed Account Options – Minimum Guarantee Rate: [1.0% - 3.0%] 

Minimum Partial Withdrawal Amount: [$1,000] 

Maximum Penalty-Free Withdrawal Percentage: [10%] 

Minimum Systematic Withdrawal Amount: [$100] 

Minimum Amount Remaining After a Partial Withdrawal: [$2,500] 

Withdrawal Charge Schedule: 
  





 
 See Page [11] for Withdrawal Provisions. 

  

					
	AS-993-P5 (6/11)		 3
		










 CONTRACT DATA PAGE (Cont’d.) 

 

 Minimum Transfer Amount: [$100] 

Separate Account Charge (including guaranteed death benefit risk charge of [0.10%]): 





 
 Annual Contract Maintenance Fee: [$50] 

Transfer Fee: [$25] 

Earliest Annuity Date After Contract Date: [Two years] 

Latest Annuity Date: [1st day of the month following Age 95] 

Separate Account: [Variable Separate Account] 
  

									
	 




		 Optional Elections:

SunAmerica Income Plus
				 Optional Election Details:
 See
Attached Endorsement ASE-6248
		 





							

  

  

					
	AS-993-P5 (6/11)		 4
#### § 1011.2 Revocation regardless of registration.

All purchasers have the option to revoke a contract or lease with regard to a lot not exempt under §§ 1010.5 through 1010.11 and 1010.14 until midnight of the seventh day after the day that the purchaser signs a contract or lease. If a purchaser is entitled to a longer revocation period under state law, that period is deemed the Federal revocation period rather than the 7 days, and all contracts and agreements (including promissory notes) shall so state.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
                                                    
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  Dec-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       Mar-29-1997
<CASH>                                                      96,000
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,354,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                               316,000
<INVENTORY>                                                385,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         1,528,000
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           1,915,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      713,000
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                    61,000
<OTHER-SE>                                               1,078,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             1,915,000
<SALES>                                                  1,524,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,524,000
<CGS>                                                      972,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            1,417,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           445,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           4,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            103,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               103,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0.02
        

</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-20-00111-CR

IN RE KIM WAYNE BURDEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kim Wayne Burden petitioned for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the trial 

judge of the 8th Judicial District Court of Delta County, Texas, to rule on her motion for a copy 

of the trial court’s record. Because Burden failed to provide us with a record to support her 

entitlement to mandamus relief, we deny her petition for writ of mandamus.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) that she has no adequate 

remedy at law and (2) that the action she seeks to compel is ministerial, not one involving a 

discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at 

Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The relator has 

“the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish [her] right to mandamus

relief.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see In re 

Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. 

proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Before mandamus may issue, the relator must show 

that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act, was asked to do so, and failed or 

refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig.

proceeding).

Burden’s petition includes a file-stamped copy of her motion and a copy of an unsworn

and uncertified letter to the district clerk dated July 4, 2020, asking about the motion. That said, 

the petition does not come with any proof that she brought this matter to the attention of the trial 

court, as is required. See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, 

orig. proceeding). “Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute 
3

proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court with 

a request for a ruling.” Id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k). We, therefore, cannot determine 

whether this matter was presented to the trial court. See Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662. It is the 

relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus 

relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Here, the record is inadequate to grant 

mandamus relief. 

For these reasons, we deny Burden’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

Scott E. Stevens

Justice

Date Submitted: October 28, 2020

Date Decided: October 29, 2020

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 99.1
                  CERTIFICATION 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 of Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the  quarter ended
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Saxe, Chairman of the Board
and 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:

  1.   The Report 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.


  /s/ Robert L. Saxe
  Robert L. Saxe
  Chairman of the Board
  and Chief Executive Officer
  August 14, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11455

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KATHRYN GRACE DIRKS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-374-3

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Kathryn Grace Dirks has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Dirks has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. Regardless of potentially

nonfrivolous issues that have been previously identified, it is dispositive that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11455 Document: 00514968578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
No. 17-11455

2

the Government has declined to waive the untimeliness of the appeal. See 

United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Therefore, without prejudice to a future 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that Dirks

may file, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-11455 Document: 00514968578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
EX-10.58



 Exhibit 10.58 
  

			
	



		  
 111 Eighth Avenue

7th Floor

New York, NY 10011
 212.624.3700


 As of March 25, 2015 

Michael B. Glick 
 c/o WebMD Health Corp. 

111 Eighth Avenue 
 New York, NY 10011-5201 

Dear Mike: 
 Reference is made to the grant of
(i) a nonqualified option to purchase 42,500 shares of WebMD Health Corp.’s (the “Company”) Common Stock made to you on March 25, 2015 (the “2015 Option”) as evidenced by the Option Agreement dated March 25,
2015 (the “Option Agreement”) and (ii) 16,000 shares of the Company’s restricted Common Stock made to you on the same date (the “2015 Restricted Stock Grant” and collectively with the 2015 Option, the “2015
Grants”) and evidenced by a Restricted Stock Agreement dated March 25, 2015 (the “Restricted Stock Agreement”). 
  

	 	1.	Impact of Certain Terminations following a Change of Control. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Option Agreement or the Restricted Stock Agreement, in the event of the termination
of your employment by the Company without Cause or by you for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in your Employment Agreement with the Company dated February 11, 2011, as amended, (the “Employment Agreement”)), in either case
following a Change of Control of the Company (as defined in the Company’s Amended and Restated 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan): 

  

	 	(a)	the 2015 Option, to the extent unvested, shall be deemed vested on the date of termination and shall remain outstanding as if you remained in the employ of the Company through the expiration of the originally scheduled
term of the 2015 Option; and 

  

	 	(b)	the 2015 Restricted Stock Grant, to the extent unvested, shall be deemed vested on the date of termination. 


The acceleration of vesting of the 2015 Grants and the continued exercisability of the 2015 Option are expressly conditioned on (i) a
release of claims (as described in the Employment Agreement) being executed by you and becoming effective and (ii) your continued compliance with the restrictive covenant agreements you have signed in connection with your employment. 








	 	2.	Effect on Agreements. Except as set forth herein, the Option Agreement and the Restricted Stock Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


 

			
	Sincerely,
	
	WEBMD HEALTH CORP
		
	By:		 /s/ Lewis H. Leicher

			Lewis H. Leicher
			Senior Vice President
	
	Agreed to:
	
	 /s/ Michael B. Glick

	Michael B. Glick


  
 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Boundless Motor
Sports Racing, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paul A. Kruger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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/ Paul A. KrugerPaul A. KrugerChief Executive OfficerDate: May 24, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2660 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2660

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to extend the period 
for filing charges of discrimination in violation of such title and to 
 provide relief for certain current injuries arising from compensation 
calculations attributable to compensation decisions made at any time in 
                        violation of such title.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2007

   Mr. Ruppersberger (for himself, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Ms. Wasserman 
   Schultz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to extend the period 
for filing charges of discrimination in violation of such title and to 
 provide relief for certain current injuries arising from compensation 
calculations attributable to compensation decisions made at any time in 
                        violation of such title.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``2007 Civil Rights Pay Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-
5(e)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``one hundred and eighty'' and 
                inserting ``360'', and
                    (B) by striking ``three hundred'' and inserting 
                ``480'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice 
occurs with respect to compensation when a person aggrieved is injured 
as a result of a compensation calculation attributable in whole or in 
part to the application or continuation of a compensation decision that 
was made--
            ``(A) at any time before a charge relating to such 
        calculation is filed under this section; and
            ``(B) for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in 
        violation of this title.''.
                                 <all>
```