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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EWIN HENRIQUES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-89-P, CA-97-78-3-P)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Ernest Gronquist, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Douglas Scott Broyles, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ewin Henriques seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Henriques, Nos. CR-93-89-P;

CA-97-78-3-P (W.D.N.C. May 4, 1998). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 842 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 842

  To authorize to be appropriated $9,200,000 for fiscal year 2008 to 
 acquire real property and carry out military construction projects at 
                   Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2007

 Mr. Domenici (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize to be appropriated $9,200,000 for fiscal year 2008 to 
 acquire real property and carry out military construction projects at 
                   Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT 
              CANNON AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO.

    (a) Authority.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
authorization of appropriations under subsection (b), the Secretary of 
the Air Force may acquire real property and carry out military 
construction projects at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico, as 
specified under such subsection.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for military construction and land 
acquisition for the Department of the Air Force the following amounts:
            (1) For the construction or alteration of a C-130 aircraft 
        hangar at Cannon Air Force, New Mexico, $1,700,000.
            (2) For the construction of an MC-130 Flight Simulator 
        Facility at Cannon Air Force, New Mexico, $7,500,000.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
      32**





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 Annual Report of China Display Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Lawrence
      Kwok-Yan Chan, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Kam Ming Yip, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, hereby certify that





|1) | The
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
              and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|2) | The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:
                March 21, 2008
            /s/
                Lawrence Kwok-Yan ChanName:Title:
                Chief Executive OfficerDated:
                March 21, 2008
            /s/
                Kam Ming YipName:
                Kam Ming YipTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00080-CR

Robert Martinez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 9034222, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Robert Martinez guilty of indecency with a child by contact

and aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11 (West 2003), § 22.021

(West Supp. 2004-05). The court assessed punishment for each offense, enhanced by a previous

felony conviction, at twenty-three years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by demonstrating that the only arguable contentions that might support the appeal are

ultimately without merit. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
2

1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his right to examine

the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: October 28, 2004

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 10.38A



|TO: | William A. Shumaker
|--- | -------------------



|RE: | EXTENSION OF CHANGE OF CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------



Pursuant to Section 1(b) of your Change of Control Employment Agreement (the Agreement), dated as of November 12, 1999, the term of the
Agreement, as stated in Section 1(b) thereof, is hereby extended so that the Agreement, as extended, will end on November 12, 2008.



In all other respects, the Agreement is reaffirmed and remains unchanged.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension Agreement, pursuant to authorization from the Board of Directors of the Company, is
executed in the Companys name and on its behalf as of the day and year shown herein.



Date: March 22, 2005



/s/ William A. ShumakerWilliam A. ShumakerKEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATIONBy:

/s/ Eli Manchester, Jr.Eli Manchester, Jr.Its:

Chairman of the Board
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

PRINTFLY CORPORATION

v.

JORDAN NEMEROFF AND ELYSSA 

NEMEROFF

v.

MICHAEL NEMEROFF AND ALEXIS 

NEMEROFF

PETITION OF: JORDAN NEMEROFF AND 

ELYSSA NEMEROFF

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 352 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
,. 

OFFICE OF THE ATT’ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

bnoT0 aourt 

tat* h*rlry 8 

than Ol&d~ theamm0 than on. hunfl.)2,000) aooorQ- 

?odrnl centNm* 

rdonor .orrtaln 

and la ocmnoqoion 

toaobllo rhllo en 

1 roqalring oaoh 

oaor.fo pay tho 0 

77 

II0 or 

t0jar 0r 8a0h ~0 010 00 

lthout em far%hor l moneo 
1 . 380 

(2Q,OOO) robaot~non khan +~~hun&nQthIrt~-tra 

thouua4 (1~2&00) woor 

Fodoral (Ionmu, tho aoair 2 

to tha lut proo+dl4 

owro Oourt la honby 

l aho?lwd bo allow -ah Owlllwlonor t&a M of 

not mom than nity aollara 0~8.00) per math to 

bo pd1ortos %he Bea4 u!d Bridge rnd of mob 

n8peatlro Uorriadonom‘ Proalnot, r0r t~t*lillg 

l rpraaoo~ddorool~tlo~onhl~ antoaabllowhllr 

on OfflOW baa La 88 oaly. 

*8RaTIoa ,2* IIaobrashm8doar?.kl~ 

a ll l r p a a um in Uha o r8tlon of l WC l utosobllo 

*ld h oop l U la n x ? in0 o f my o th or o h a r g or _ 

to t& e o o a ntye 

%RGTX($I 3. Tha tut that la thr aoaatior 8?- 

footed by fhia Aot them 1s~ great ~04 that tIw 

00aat10r pu+AolJmCo ln aoeaylng %bb l xpuurr of 

saah ooealadomrr booms. ohi ,mO rrrooat of m#@ 

wrk ocrr’,&~m on laonawr kho -nooooaf~y of saoX 

.Oaairdoamn trrvoi.#a@ frea plaoo PO #Leo. ova* 

Ueif4 k&O Oonotrttotion 8Ed titmut&Oo of 8Wh’ 

roda ento an aurgoa8y and bn lmponklvo pub 

110 nooooslty that tho 08n~tltatioaal nqo y& 

laj~ bllla tm bo mad on three srvohil d 

Rowe bo 8u8ponaml oaa the 8tiO~ i8 hero T y ruspendda u, nu thfAo ok a & a til a kl e ifeot, UC4 bo fa fo r 00 

.fmronaa* ltr pu8~0$ utll$ ir H)oImot&'
§ 2510.3-37 Multiemployer plan. ( a ) *General.* Section 3(37) of the Act contains in paragraphs (a)(i)-(iv) a number of criteria which an employee benefit plan must meet in order to be a multiemployer plan under the Act. Section 3(37) also provides that the Secretary may prescribe by regulation other requirements in addition to those contained in paragraphs (a)(i)-(iv). The purpose of this regulation is to establish such requirements.
( b ) *Plans in existence before the effective date.* ( 1 ) A plan in existence before September 2, 1974, will be considered a multiemployer plan if it satisfies the requirements of section 3(37)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act.
( 2 ) For purposes of this section, a plan is considered to be in existence if: ( i ) ( A ) The plan was reduced to writing and adopted by the participating employers and the employee organization (including, in the case of a corporate employer, formal approval by an employer's board of directors or shareholders, if required), even though no amounts had been contributed under the plan, and
( B ) The plan has not been terminated; or
( ii ) ( A ) There was a legally enforceable agreement to establish such a plan signed by the employers and the employee organization, and
( B ) The contributions to be made to the plan were set forth in the agreement.
( iii ) If a plan was in existence within the meaning of paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, any other plan with which such existing plan is merged or consolidated shall also be considered to be in existence.
( c ) *Plans not in existence before the effective date.* In addition to the provisions of section 3(37)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act, a multiemployer plan established on or after September 2, 1974, must meet the requirement that it was established for a substantial business purpose. A substantial business purpose includes the interest of a labor organization in securing an employee benefit plan for its members. The following factors are relevant in determining whether a substantial business purpose existed for the establishment of a plan; any single factor may be sufficient to constitute a substantial business purpose: ( 1 ) The extent to which the plan is maintained by a substantial number of unaffiliated contributing employers and covers a substantial portion of the trade, craft or industry in terms of employees or a substantial number of the employees in the trade, craft or industry in a locality or geographic area;
( 2 ) The extent to which the plan provides benefits more closely related to years of service within the trade, craft or industry rather than with an employer, reflecting the fact that an employee's relationship with an employer maintaining the plan is generally short-term although service in the trade, craft or industry is generally long-term;
( 3 ) The extent to which collective bargaining takes place on matters other than employee benefit plans between the employee organization and the employers maintaining the plan; and
( 4 ) The extent to which the administrative burden and expense of providing benefits through single employer plans would be greater than through a multiemployer plan.
[40 FR 52008, Nov. 7, 1975]
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1896 V

UNPUBLISHED

COURTNEY GRAHAM

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: July 14, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC , for

petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On October 10, 2018

, Cour tney Graham filed a petition for compensation under

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injur y related to

vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) caused by a n influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered on

December 13, 2017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing

Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 10, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 at 1. Specifically, R espondent stated that he reviewed the records and concluded that

compensation is appropriate under the Vaccine A ct Id. at 1, 5 . Respondent further

agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for co mpensation under the

Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### Copeland *v.*Pate.

The defendant in a proceeding by certiorari must have notice, or the judgment will be erroneous.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Tishemingo.

Hughes, for plaintiff in error.

Hubbard, contra.

Turner, Justice.

The only assignment of error which we deem it necessary to notice, is, that the defendant, Copeland, had no notice of the *certiorari*in the circuit court.

The plaintiff below, A. E. Pate, brought his action to recover a demand on open account against the defendant below, Copeland, and one Harrison, for $40 45, and on the trial, the parties having been served with process, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $4 494, on the 27th January, 1838. The plainti being dissatisfied with the verdict, petitioned for and obtained a fiat for a certiorari, to the circuit court of Tishemingo county. This was done on the 7th December, 1838, nearly one year after the judgment. At the June term of the circuit court, 1839, diminution of the record is suggested, and an alias certiorari obtained, and on the 10th of October following, the alias issued. At December term, 1839, the plaintiff filed his declaration, containing the common counts in assumpsit, for $49 16. At the June term, 1840, the cause was submitted to a jury to assess damages, and a verdict was had for plaintiff for $60 67, and judgment rendered thereon.

*276No notice was served on the defendant below to appear, or of the sueing out of the certiorari. The entry of the clerk, that “this day came the parties, by their attorneys,” is not sufficient evidence that any party appeared but that party who was in court, and that was the plaintiff.

It is as important that a citation issue in cases of certiorari as in cases of error. There can be no inference raised that the defendants below had notice. They knew that the plaintiff had recovered a judgment against them, before the justice of the peace. The subsequent proceedings were entirely before another tribunal.

The judgment must be reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 accompanying Report of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 17, 2009



/s/    D. Michael ParkerD. Michael Parker Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
§ 2570.154 Filing and contents of petition. ( a ) A person seeking a finding under section 3(40) of ERISA must file a written petition by delivering or mailing it to the Chief Docket Clerk, Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), 800 K Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001-8002, or by making a filing by any electronic means permitted under procedures established by the OALJ.
( b ) The petition shall— ( 1 ) Provide the name and address of the entity for which the petition is filed;
( 2 ) Provide the names and addresses of the plan administrator and plan sponsor(s) of the plan or other arrangement for which the finding is sought;
( 3 ) Identify the state or states whose law or jurisdiction the petitioner claims has been asserted over the petitioner, and provide the addresses and names of responsible officials;
( 4 ) Include affidavits or other written evidence showing that: ( i ) State jurisdiction has been asserted over or legal process commenced against the petitioner pursuant to state law;
( ii ) The petitioner is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined at section 3(1) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. 1002(1)) and 29 CFR 2510.3-1 and is covered by title I of ERISA (*see* 29 U.S.C. 1003);
( iii ) The petitioner is established or maintained for the purpose of offering or providing benefits described in section 3(1) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. 1002(1)) to employees of two or more employers (including one or more self-employed individuals) or their beneficiaries;
( iv ) The petitioner satisfies the criteria in 29 CFR 2510.3-40(b); and
( v ) Service has been made as provided in § 2570.155.
( 5 ) The affidavits shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence in a proceeding under 29 CFR part 18 and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. The affidavit or other written evidence must set forth specific facts showing the factors required under paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
§ 23.230 Deductions. The contractor may make deductions that reduce a worker's wages below the Executive Order minimum wage rate only if such deduction qualifies as a: ( a ) Deduction required by Federal, state, or local law, such as Federal or state withholding of income taxes;
( b ) Deduction for payments made to third parties pursuant to court order;
( c ) Deduction directed by a voluntary assignment of the worker or his or her authorized representative; or
( d ) Deduction for the reasonable cost or fair value, as determined by the Administrator, of furnishing such worker with “board, lodging, or other facilities,” as defined in 29 U.S.C. 203(m)(1) and part 531 of this title.