alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 21, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30803 Conference Calendar

KENNETH SPRADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus O. KENT ANDREWS, TOMMY DAVIS, BUCK DUPLECHAIN, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:02-CV-1546-PM-APW

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Spradley (Spradley), Louisiana prisoner # 101526, appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that he suffered injuries as a result of excessive force by prison officials. On appeal, Spradley does not address any of the facts or issues asserted by the defendants in the motion for summary judgment. He fails to challenge the decision of the district court in granting the motion.No. 04-30803 -2- Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), arguments must be briefed to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Spradley failed to brief any of the issues raised in the granting of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he has abandoned any issues before this court. Hughes v. Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1999). Spradley’s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Spradley previously filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action which was dismissed by the district court as frivolous. Spradley v. Batiste , No. 96-22-B-1 (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 1996). The dismissal of the prior § 1983 action and the dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Spradley is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**EXHIBIT 10.6**

**ICAGEN, INC.**

**Summary of Director Compensation**

**Compensation of our Directors**

Icagen, Inc.reimburses each non-employee director for out-of-pocket expenses they incur in attending Board and committee meetings and pays each non-employee director an annual retainer fee of $25,000. The Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee receivesan additional annual retainer of $10,000 and other committee chairmen receive an additional annual retainer of $3,000. In addition, the Company pays each non-employee director $1,000 for attendance at each Board meeting in which he or sheparticipates in person or $500 if attendance is by telephone. Each non-employee director also receives $1,000 for each meeting of a committee of the Board in which he or she participates in person or $500 if attendance is by telephone that is heldon a day other than the day of the date of any meeting of the full Board of Directors. Directors who are also the Company’s employees do not receive any compensation in their capacities as directors. 

Each of the Company’s non-employee directors receives options to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for his or her servicesas a director for each three-year term served. Options for the Company’s current directors are granted every three calendar years as of the first business day of the calendar year. Options for new directors will be granted as of the date of theelection or appointment of the director to the Board of Directors. Options granted to the non-employee directors vest monthly over three years, subject to the director’s continued service as a director. In addition, the Company’s Chairmanof the Board of Directors receives options to purchase 20,000 additional shares of the Company’s common stock for his or her services as a director for each year served. Options for the Company’s Chairman of the Board of Directors aregranted every calendar year as of the first business day of the calendar year. Options granted to the Chairman of the Board of Directors vest monthly over one year, subject to the director’s continued service as a director. Options granted tonon-employee directors have exercise prices equal to the fair market value of common stock at the date of grant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MARK PAUL: KLEEMAN, IN ESSE AND SUI JURIS, CLAIMANT IN LAW,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC M. SCHRANTZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL

AND PRIVATE CAPACITY AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

T/D/B/A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER'S LICENSING,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 155 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of November , 2018, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for “Writ of Mandamus in the Nature of

Equity” is DENIED.

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
Exhibit
32.1
 
  CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the “the Report”) of
Clearfield, Inc. a Minnesota corporation. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof  (the “Report”),  the undersigned officer of the
Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, that, to her knowledge
  1.
                  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  2.
                  The
      information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
 
  May 12,
2008
  
 Signature:
/s/ Cheryl Beranek
Podzimek
 Print
Name: Cheryl Beranek
Podzimek
 Print
Title: Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
  20
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the
"Form 10-K") of Cardinal Financial Corporation, I, Bernard H. Clineburg, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Date: March 14, 2011

/s/ BERNARD H. CLINEBURG Bernard H. Clineburg Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>




                                   Exhibit 15

                           Accountants' Acknowledgment

First Brands Corporation
83 Wooster Heights Road
Danbury, CT  06813-1911

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        RE: FORM S-8 REGISTRATION STATEMENTS NO. 33-35770, NO. 33-56992,
                         NO. 33-56503 AND NO. 333-56503

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 30, 1997 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 (C) under the Securities Act of 1933, such reports are
not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                                      Very truly yours,

                                                      /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

New York, New York
November 12, 1997


<PAGE>
# Official Journal C 330/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 330 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 587 October 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 330

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 587 October 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 330/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7716 — Pfizer/GSK Menacwy Business) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2015/C 330/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7756 — Providence Equity/Chime) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 330/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7716 — Pfizer/GSK Menacwy Business) (
  1
  )

1

1

2015/C 330/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7756 — Providence Equity/Chime) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 330/3 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 330/3

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 330/4 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 3 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 330/4

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

BRENT GORDON , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1465

[ January 4 , 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Laura C. Burkhart , Judge; L.T. Case No.
502022MH001373ASB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jacqueline I.
Kurland , Senior Assistant Att orney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

P ER C URIAM

.

The appellant appeals from the circuit court’s order directing that he be subject to involuntary inpatient placement and be appointed a guardian
advocate. He argues the circuit court lacked clear and convincing evidence
that because of his mental illness

, he “is incapable of surviving alone or with the help of willing and responsible family or friends, including
available alternative services, and, without treatment, is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself

... , and such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his

... well

- being [,] ” or “[t]here is a substantial likelihood that in the nea r future he

... will inflict serious bodily harm on [ him ] self or others , as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm [.] ” § 394.467(1) (a)2. , Fl a. Stat. (2021).2 The state concedes the circuit court lacked clear and convincing evidence to support its finding that the appellant met section
394.467 (1)(a)2. ’s requirements for involuntary patient placement.

Based on our review of the record, we agree with the state’s concession of error. Therefore, we reverse the circui t court’s order, and remand for the circuit court to enter an order denying the petition for involuntary patient placement.

Reversed and remanded with instructions

.

G ROSS , M AY , and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
- 931 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. McGIN

Cite as 303 Neb. 931

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Danny J. McGinn, ap

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 23, 2019. No. S-18-744.

supplemental opin

Appeal from the District Court for Holt County, Mark D

Kozisek, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for

Holt County, Kale B. Burdick, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overru

Forrest F. Peetz, of Peetz Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss, 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller‐Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg,

Per Curiam

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. 

McGinn.

1

 We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion 

as follows:

In the analysis section, we withdraw the last paragraph2 and 

substitute the following:

1 State v. McGinn, ante p. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019).

2 Id. at 234, 928 N.W.2d at 398.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

11/08/2019 08:06 AM CST
- 932 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. McGIN

Cite as 303 Neb. 931

In this matter, because we consider all evidence admitted by the trial court, erroneously or not, we consider the 

breath test in our double jeopardy analysis. Considering 

the breath test, the evidence was sufficient to sustain 

a guilty verdict for a violation of § 60-6,196(1)(c) as 

charged. As such, double jeopardy does not forbid a 

remand for a new trial. Therefore, in consideration of 

all of the above, we reverse the district court’s decision 

affirming the county court’s conviction and remand the 

cause to the district court with directions to remand the 

matter to the county court for a new trial.

In the sole paragraph of the conclusion section, we withdraw 

the last sentence3 and substitute the following: “Accordingly, 

we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county 

court’s conviction, but determine double jeopardy does not 

require dismissal of this action.”

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modifi

 Motion for rehearing overr

3 Id.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-0161 

JENNIFER BRICK, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

THE HONORABLE JUDGE TIERNEY, Judge of 

Bozeman 

Municipal Court, Bozeman, MT, 

Respondent. 

GRANT OF MOTION TO 

PROCEED WITHOUT 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE 

Motion to proceed without payment of the filing fee in this matter is 

GRANTED. 

DATED March 18, 2024. 

BOWEN GREENWOOD 

Clerk of the Supreme Court 

03/18/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0161
## Flight Log

Pre-flight inspection ☐ Yes ☐ No

Comment Comment:

Date: Time: Location:

Circle Circle Comment Weather Good Fair Visibility Good Fair Wind Speed Low Medium Proximity to airport: Airport Notified? ☐ Yes ☐ No Date: Time: Phone number: Contact Name: Proximity to medium traffic road: Proximity to heavily traveled roadway road: Proximity to congested population: Approximate flight duration: Safety Concerns:

Additional Comments:

Signature _______________________
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 2, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C.                     *et. seq.*                     (“the Act”), Digital Imaging Group, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, AXS Technologies SA, Lousanne, SWITZERLAND; Alchemedia, San Francisco, CA; Museum Informatics Project, Berkeley, CA; and Pegasus Imaging Corp., Tampa, FL have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Sound Vision, Inc., Framingham, MA; and Micrografx, Inc., Richardson, TX have been dropped as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the joint venture. Membership in this joint venture remains open, and Digital Imaging Group, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On September 25, 1997, Digital Imaging Group, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60530).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 19, 1999. A notice has not yet been published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-10601  Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 D0 15 5 . LEMARCUS ALLI SON et a l . v . MARTI N C. J ONES et a l

.

Up o n co n s id era t i o n o f t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d is cret i o n ary ap p eal

, i t i s o rd ered

t h at i t b e h ereb y

DENIED.

In t h e cert i fi cat e of serv i ce at t ach ed t o t h is ap p li cat i o n , co un s el fo r Lem arcu s

Al l i s on cert i fi ed t hat h e s erv ed t h e ap pl i cat io n on Cal co n M u t ual M o rt g ag e, LLC, by

em ai l p u rs uan t t o a p ri o r ag reem en t wi t h Cal co n’ s at t o rn ey s t o al l o w su ch serv i ce. In

i t s res p on s e bri ef, Cal co n rep res en t s t hat no ag reem en t fo r el ect ro n i c serv i ce ex i s t s

b et ween t h e part i es , an d Cal co n h as su b m i t t ed affi dav i t s fro m it s at t o rn e ys t o t h at

effect

. Th i s Co u rt t ak es seri o u sl y m i s rep res en t at i o n s l i k e t h at al l eg ed b y Cal co n , an d

b o t h co u n s el an d cl i en t m ay b e s u b ject ed t o s an ct i o ns i n t h i s o r ot h er ap p eal s fo r s u ch

m i s co n du ct i f p ro ven

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.
W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 27, 2021

12/27/2021
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Anthony Jurak, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lifequest WorldCorporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange 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 report is being    prepared;

b) [Intentionally Omitted]

c) 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

d) 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, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (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: September 10, 2007                                /s/ Anthony Jurak                                                        Chairman,                                                        Chief Executive Officer                                                        Acting Chief Accounting Officer