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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6341

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT L. MACK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (3:91-cr-00049-RLV-30; 3:07-cv-00526-RLV)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mack’s motion for

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 before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Order filed April 23, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00843-CV

____________

EITAN LEVY AND NILI LEVY, Appellants

V.

GARY LEACH AND SHARON LEACH, Appellees

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-56345

ORDER

Appellants’ brief was originally due January 21, 2020. We granted three 

extensions of time to file appellants’ brief until April 13, 2020. When we granted 

the final extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent 

exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed. 

We order appellants to file a brief with the clerk of this court on or before 

May 13, 2020. If appellants do not timely file the brief as ordered, the court will 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
FIFTHCAI INC
                          4300 N. MILLER RD. SUITE 120
                         SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85251-3620



February 1, 2000
Kenneth R. Lew
4300 North Miller Rd. Suite 120
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

     Re: Lock-Up Agreement with Fifthcai, Inc.

Gentlemen,

     In consideration of the sale to the holder by Fifthcai,  Inc., (Company) of
its Common Stock ($.0001 par value), the undersigned holder warrants,  covenants
and agrees for the benefit of the Company not to sell, offer to sell, solicit an
offer to buy, contract to sell, make any short sale,  pledge,  grant,  grant any
option to purchase,  or  otherwise  transfer or dispose of, any shares of Common
stock, or any securities  convertible  into or exercisable or  exchangeable  for
Common Stock,  owned directly or beneficially by the undersigned or with respect
to which the undersigned has the power of disposition, except in connection with
or following a completed merger or acquisition by the Company and the Company is
no longer  classified as a blank check company  pursuant to Section 7 (b) (3) of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

     An attempt to sell, transfer or any type of disposition of the shares shall
be a violation of this letter  agreement and shall be  ineffective  and null and
void.

     In  furtherance  of the  foregoing,  the holder agrees to; (1) delivery his
shares to the  Company  for safe  keeping;  (2) allow the  Company to advise its
Transfer Agent not to transfer said  securities and (3) authorize the company to
deliver a copy of this  Agreement to the  transfer  agent with  instructions  to
decline to make any transfer of securities if such transfer  would  constitute a
violation or breach of this Agreement.

     This  Agreement  shall be  binding  upon the  holder,  its  agents,  heirs,
successors, assignees and beneficiaries.
<PAGE>
     A waiver of the terms and  conditions of this  agreement must be in writing
and executed by the proper officer of the Company and the holder.

     If there is a breach or  threatened  breach of this  Agreement,  the holder
agrees  that  there is no  adequate  remedy at law and said  breach  will  cause
irreparable damage. Accordingly,  the holder agrees that the Company is entitled
to the issuance of an immediate injunction without notice to restrain the breach
or  threatened  breach.  This remedy is not exclusive and the holder agrees that
the  Company  and third  party  beneficiaries  shall be  entitled  to seek other
remedies including a claim for other remedies, including money damages.


THE HOLDER


/s/ Kenneth R. Lew
--------------------------
Kenneth R. Lew                         Constituting 30,000 shares certificate(s)

                                                             #__________________
# Official Journal C 316A/28 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 316A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5028 December 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 316A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5028 December 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| 2007/C 316A/01 | Vacancy Notice No 73/07 concerning a post of Secretary-general (M/F) in the Secretariat of the European Economic and Social Committee — Publication under Article 2(a) and Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Economic and Social Committee

2007/C 316A/01

Vacancy Notice No 73/07 concerning a post of Secretary-general (M/F) in the Secretariat of the European Economic and Social Committee — Publication under Article 2(a) and Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities

1

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2007/C 316A/02 | Corrigendum to the notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/105-107/07 to constitute a reserve of Heads of Unit (AD9 and AD12) in the field of translation who have Bulgarian and Romanian as their main language. (OJ C 279 A, 22.11.2007) | 4 |

Corrigenda

2007/C 316A/02

Corrigendum to the notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/105-107/07 to constitute a reserve of Heads of Unit (AD9 and AD12) in the field of translation who have Bulgarian and Romanian as their main language. (OJ C 279 A, 22.11.2007)

4

---

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

EN
Exhibit 10.3


 



Second Amendment to Compensation Matters Agreement of Dieter Wunderlich







This second amendment to Compensation Matters Agreement (the "Second Amendment"), made as of March 3, 2015 by and between Vishay Electronic GmbH, a German company ("Vishay Electronic") and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Vishay"), and DIETER WUNDERLICH ("Executive") (collectively the "Parties").







WHEREAS, Executive is employed by Vishay Electronic and is a Party to that certain Compensation Matters Agreement made between the Parties as of November 11, 2011, as amended by the first amendment to the Compensation Matters Agreement made between the Parties as of March 4, 2014 (collectively, the "Compensation Matters Agreement");







WHEREAS, Vishay Electronic and Executive may amend the Compensation Matters Agreement by mutual agreement in writing; and







 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Compensation Matters Agreement as set forth in this Second Amendment.







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







1.Paragraph two of the Compensation Matters Agreement is hereby amended by replacing "2012" and "35%" in the first sentence with "2015" and "50%", respectively.







2.The amendments to the Compensation Matters Agreement made by paragraph 1 of this Second Amendment shall be effective as of March 3, 2015.







3.Except as set forth in this Second Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Compensation Matters Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







4.This Second Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Second Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of the date first above written.







VISHAY ELECTRONIC GMBH







By: /s/ Werner Gebhardt                            By: /s/ Thomas van Laak


Name: Werner Gebhardt                                Name: Thomas van Laak


Title: Managing Director                             Title: Sr. Director HR Europe







Date: April 28, 2015                               Date: April 28, 2015







[Executive's signature on next page]























 




/s/ Dieter Wunderlich


Dieter Wunderlich







Date: April 20, 2015
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT CF 2002

 

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q forRFMC Willowbridge Fund L.P. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned certifies in his capacity as an officer of RuvaneFund Management Corporation, the general partner of RFMC Willowbridge Fund  L.P., that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofRFMC Willowbridge Fund L.P. for the period in question.

| Date: August 14, 2007 |   | By:    /s/   Robert L. Lerner                                                       

President

Ruvane Fund Management Corporationthe general partner of RFMC Willowbridge Fund L.P. |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

|   |   |
|--------|--------|
#### § 228.45 Publication of planned examination schedule.

The Board publishes on its public website, at least 30 days in advance of the beginning of each calendar quarter, a list of banks scheduled for CRA examinations for the next two quarters.
<PAGE>   1
 
                             METAL MANAGEMENT, INC.
 
                                 EXHIBIT INDEX
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT
NUMBER                        DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT
-------                       ----------------------
<C>        <S>
    2.1    Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 27, 1997, by
           and among the Registrant, Proler Acquisition, Inc., Proler
           Southwest, Inc. and the Shareholders of Proler Southwest,
           Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 of the
           Registrant's report on Form 8-K dated
           August 28, 1997).
    2.2    Purchase Agreement for Membership Interests of Proler
           Steelworks, L.L.C. dated as of August 27, 1997 by and among
           the Registrant, Proler Steelworks, L.L.C. and the Members of
           Proler Steelworks, L.L.C. (incorporated by reference to
           Exhibit 2.2 of the Registrant's report on Form 8-K dated
           August 28, 1997).
    3.1    Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended through May 24, 1997
           (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the
           Registrant's report on Form 10-K for the year ended March
           31, 1997).
    3.2    Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of
           Series A Convertible Preferred Stock of the Registrant
           (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 of the
           Registrant's report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
           30, 1997).
    4.1    Securities Purchase Agreement, dated August 8, 1997, between
           the Registrant and Proprietary Convertible Investment Group,
           Inc. and Advantage Fund Limited (incorporated by reference
           to Exhibit 4.1 of the Registrant's report on Form 10-Q for
           the quarter ended June 30, 1997).
    4.2    Registration Rights Agreement, dated August 8, 1997, between
           the Registrant and Proprietary Convertible Investment Group,
           Inc. and Advantage Fund Limited (incorporated by reference
           to Exhibit 4.2 of the Registrant's report on Form 10-Q for
           the quarter ended June 30, 1997).
   10.1    Employment Agreement dated as of August 27, 1997 by and
           between the Registrant and William T. Proler (incorporated
           by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Registrant's report on
           Form 8-K dated August 28, 1997).
   11.1    Computation of net income per share.
   27.1    Financial Data Schedule.
</TABLE>
 
                                       31
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1084

___________________________

Stephen Roberts; Genevieve Roberts

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: June 22, 2015

Filed: July 8, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this removed breach-of-contract action, Stephen and Genevieve Roberts

appeal the district court’s December 2014 order and judgment granting a motion to

enforce a settlement agreement. The settlement-enforcement motion was filed by

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen), over four months after the district court had

entered a March 2014 order stating that it had been advised of a settlement by the
parties, dismissing the action without prejudice, and expressly reserving jurisdiction

for 60 days to permit any party to move to reopen the action for good cause or to file

a stipulated form of final judgment.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court lacked

ancillary jurisdiction to rule on Ocwen’s motion because the court’s March 2014

dismissal order did not incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement, the court

retained jurisdiction for only 60 days, and no action was taken by any party during

those 60 days. See United States v. Afremov, 611 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2010)

(appellate court has special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction,

but also that of lower courts in cause under review; standard of review); see also

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994) (district court

has no post-dismissal ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement unless

parties’ obligation to complywith terms of agreement has beenmade part of dismissal

order either by separate provision or by incorporating terms of agreement in order);

4:20 Commc’ns, Inc. v. Paradigm Co., 336 F.3d 775, 777-79 (8th Cir. 2003) (district

court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to rule upon motion to enforce settlement

agreement where district court’s dismissal order did not incorporate terms of

settlement, court retained jurisdiction to enforce settlement but for only 90 days, and

no party acted within 90-day period; issue of subject matter jurisdiction under

Kokkonen turns on language of dismissal order, not on events prior to dismissal).

Accordingly,we vacate the district court’s December 2014 order and judgment,

and we remand the matter with instructions to the district court to dismiss Ocwen’s

settlement-enforcement motion, and to enter a separate judgment based upon the

March 2014 dismissal order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (“[j]udgment” includes any order

from which appeal lies); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (with several exceptions, every judgment

must be set out in separate document; when judgment is not set forth on separate

document, judgment is deemed entered 150 days after entry of order).

____________________________

-2-
§ 1805.800 Safety and soundness. ( a ) *Regulated institutions.* Nothing in this part, or in an Assistance Agreement, shall affect any authority of an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency to supervise and regulate any institution or company.
( b ) *Non-Regulated CDFIs.* The CDFI Fund will, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that Recipients that are Non-Regulated CDFIs are financially and managerially sound and maintain appropriate internal controls.
|   | (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 Buckeye. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated this 21st  day of January 2011                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                           |   |
|                                                           |   |
| /s/ John B. Crowe                                              |   |
| John B. CroweChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                           |   |
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.134 Escrow arrangements involving bank stock resulting in a violation of the Bank Holding Company Act. ( a ) In connection with a recent application to become a bank holding company, the Board considered a situation in which shares of a bank were acquired and then placed in escrow by the applicant prior to the Board's approval of the application. The facts indicated that the applicant company had incurred debt for the purpose of acquiring bank shares and immediately after the purchase the shares were transferred to an unaffiliated escrow agent with instructions to retain possession of the shares pending Board action on the company's application to become a bank holding company. The escrow agreement provided that, if the application were approved by the Board, the escrow agent was to return the shares to the applicant company; and, if the application were denied, the escrow agent was to deliver the shares to the applicant company's shareholders upon their assumption of debt originally incurred by the applicant in the acquisition of the bank shares. In addition, the escrow agreement provided that, while the shares were held in escrow, the applicant could not exercise voting or any other ownership rights with respect to those shares.
( b ) On the basis of the above facts, the Board concluded that the company had violated the prior approval provisions of section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (“Act”) at the time that it made the initial acquisition of bank shares and that, for purposes of the Act, the company continued to control those shares in violation of the Act. In view of these findings, individuals and bank holding companies should not enter into escrow arrangements of the type described herein, or any similar arrangement, without securing the prior approval of the Board, since such action could constitute a violation of the Act.
( c ) While the above represents the Board's conclusion with respect to the particular escrow arrangement involved in the proposal presented, the Board does not believe that the use of an escrow arrangement would always result in a violation of the Act. For example, it appears that a transaction whereby bank shares are placed in escrow pending Board action on an application would not involve a violation of the Act so long as title to such shares remains with the seller during the pendency of the application; there are no other indicia that the applicant controls the shares held in escrow; and, in the event of a Board denial of the application, the escrow agreement provides that the shares would be returned to the seller.
[41 FR 9859, Mar. 8, 1976, as amended at 41 FR 12009, Mar. 23, 1976]
# C_2022095EN.01000101.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2022/C 95/01)

Last publication

OJ C 84, 21.2.2022

Past publications

OJ C 73, 14.2.2022

OJ C 64, 7.2.2022

OJ C 51, 31.1.2022

OJ C 37, 24.1.2022

OJ C 24, 17.1.2022

OJ C 11, 10.1.2022

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---