alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6636

BELVIN M. PAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versusMICHAEL MOORE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON,Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-767-4-12BC) Submitted: June 30, 1999 Decided: September 13, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Belvin M. Page, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Belvin M. Page appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed therecord and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Page v. Moore , No. CA-98-767-4-12BC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 1999). 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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Administering the ADR Process","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hapMdrEKjy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/3administering\/\">Administering the ADR Process<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/3administering\/embed\/#?secret=hapMdrEKjy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Administering the ADR Process” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"hapMdrEKjy\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2.11




September 30, 2019 


CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
Re: Management Fee for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2019
Ladies and Gentlemen:


Reference is made to that certain Management Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2015 and effective as of May 1, 2015, by and between CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Corridor InfraTrust Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Manager”) (as such agreement has been, as may be further, amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Management Agreement”). Capitalized terms used and not defined herein are used as defined in the Management Agreement. 
 
The Company and the Manager have entered into this Letter Agreement, effective as of September 30, 2019, to clarify the application of the Management Fee provisions set forth in Section 8(a) of the Management Agreement to the Company’s net proceeds from the August 12, 2019 private placement offering of 5.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2025. This letter documents that the Manager has proposed, and the Company has agreed, that solely for the purpose of calculating the quarterly Management Fee due as of September 30, 2019, the definition of “Managed Assets” set forth in Section 8(a) of the Management Agreement shall be applied in a manner that reduces Managed Assets by the net proceeds from the August 12, 2019 private placement offering of 5.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2025 (excluding the cash portion of such proceeds utilized in connection with the exchange of the Company’s 7.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020). This letter in no way supersedes our May 9, 2016 letter agreement (effective March 31, 2016) concerning the Management Fee calculation.
 
The purpose of this waiver is to apply Section 8(a) of the Management Agreement to only the reinvested portion of the net proceeds, just received during the quarter, from the 5.875% Convertible Note offering. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by this Letter Agreement. Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by signing this Letter Agreement as indicated below.
	
	
	Very truly yours,

	 

	CORRIDOR INFRATRUST MANAGEMENT, LLC

	By:  /s/ Richard C. Green, Jr.                                 

	Name:  Richard C. Green, Jr., Managing Director




	
	
	Agreed and accepted:

	 

	CORENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST, INC.

	By:  /s/ David J. Schulte                                          

	Name:  David J. Schulte, President










1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350, Kansas City, MO 64106 | Main: 816.875.3705 | Fax: 816.875.5875 | corenergy.reit
# AGENCY:

 Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Cosmetic Product Voluntary Reporting Program” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                     In the                    **Federal Register**                     of October 28, 1999 (64 FR 58069), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0030. The approval expires on December 31, 2002. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets.                 

Dated: January 14, 2000. 

William K. Hubbard, 

Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation. 

[FR Doc. 00-1538 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6709

DEJOUN R. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LONNIE M. SAUNDERS, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-162-A)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dejoun R. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

May 4, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered

on the docket sheet on May 5, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the

order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective

date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806

F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Dejoun R. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). On appeal, Johnson claims that he is entitled to relief because his attorney did not file a response to

the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss. This claim is not cognizable

because there is no right to the effective assistance of counsel in

habeas proceedings. See Weeks v. Angelone, 176 F.3d 249, 273-74

(4th Cir. 1999) (noting that a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel in a state habeas proceeding does not merit federal habeas

relief). 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. See Johnson v. Saunders, No. CA-99-162-A

(E.D. Va. May 5, 1999).* We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment

of counsel. 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
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

d0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

139353(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139353 COA: 289555 Charlevoix CC: 03-081609-FH CHRISTOPHER DAVID THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s January 29, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

232) ll-K- (I) -45 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:56 AM Sheet 232 of 325 
P.2 

h4 

II-K-(I)-45 

TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL 

USE IN PROCESS HEATERS AND SMALL BOILERS. 

EEA, Inc. 

February 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-45
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Clive Kabatznik, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

|(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 at
               the dates and for the periods indicated.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Clive Kabatznik                        
| | -------------------------------------------
| | Clive Kabatznik                            
| | Chief Executive Officer and                
| | Chief Financial Officer                    
| | (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
| | Date: October 5, 2006                      

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Silverstar
Holdings, Ltd. and will be retained by Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

MODEL ME KIDS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MODEL-ME-KIDS, INC.,

Defendant.

 

 Case No. 1:22-cv-23871-JEM

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the Court’s Order on Notice of Settlement 

(ECF No. 18), Plaintiff Model Me Kids, LLC voluntarily dismisses this action 

against Defendant Model-Me-Kids, Inc. with prejudice. Defendant Model-Me-Kids, 

Inc. has not served any answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. 

Dated: February 20, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted,

SLATER LEGAL PLLC

By: James M. Slater

James M. Slater (FBN 111779)

333 S.E. 2nd Ave. #2000

Miami, Florida 33131

james@slater.legal

Tel: (305) 523-9023

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23871-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on February 20, 2023 a true and correct copy of this 

document was delivered via electronic mail to Model-Me-Kids, Inc., c/o Shushona 

Cooper, shushonacooper@gmail.com.

By: James M. Slater

James M. Slater 

Case 1:22-cv-23871-JEM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 102-36.110 Do we need authorization to screen excess personal property? ( a ) Yes, when entering a federal facility, federal agency employees must present a valid Federal ID. Non-federal individuals will need proof of authorization from their sponsoring federal agency in addition to a valid picture identification.
( b ) Entry on some federal and contractor facilities may require special authorization from that facility. Persons wishing to screen excess personal property on such a facility must obtain approval from that agency. Contact your regional GSA Personal Property Management office for locations and accessibility.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-21685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

XAVIER JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING DISINTERESTED STAKEHOLDER FROM ACTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Primerica Life Insurance Company’s 

Notice of Deposit into Court Registry, ECF No. [24]. Having reviewed that Notice and confirmed 

the Clerk’s receipt of funds, the Court finds that Plaintiff has fully complied with the Court’s 

Order, ECF No. [21].

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Primerica Life 

Insurance Company is DISMISSED from this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 26, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-21685-BB Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Xavier Johnson

Jail Number 210160724

c/o Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center

7000 Northwest 41st Street

Miami, FL 33166

Case 1:22-cv-21685-BB Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
[KPMG LOGO]                                                        Exhibit 23.01

     600 Anton Boulevard
     Suite 700
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7651


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Endocare, Inc.;


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-30405, No. 333-81846 and No. 333-84926) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-69748) on
Form S-3/A of Endocare, Inc., of our report dated February 19, 2002, except as
to notes 1 and 15, which are as of March 25, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Endocare, Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and 2001, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficiency)
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2001, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Endocare, Inc.

                                    KPMG LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 27, 2002
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

In connection with the annual report of Purple Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John R. Ferron, Principal Chief Financial 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: June 24, 2010



/s/ John R. FerronJohn R. FerronPrincipal Financial Officer


This certification has
been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Docket	Operations

West	Building	Ground	Floor,	Room	w12-140

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	S.E.

Washington,	DC	20590

Application	to	Amend

Section	333	Exemption	No.	11923

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1283

July 8, 2015

Paul Seiden

453 Pacific Court 

Wheeling, IL 60090

Greetings,

By	letter	from	the	FAA	dated	June	26,2015	an	exemption	was	granted	to	Paul	

Seiden	for	relief	under	Section	333.	That	letter	was	marked	Section	333	

Exemption	No.	11923	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-1283.

I,	Paul	Seiden	hereby	requests	that	the	exemption	so	granted	be	amended	to	

include	DJI	Phantom	3	models.	Relevant	facts	and	reasoning	are:

DJI	has	announced	they	will	discontinue	the	Phantom	2	model,	which	was	

approved	in	Paul	Seiden’s	Exemption	No.	11306.

Size,	weight	and	performance	specification	of	the	DJI	Phantom	3	(“P3”)	are	

substantially	similar	to	those	of	the	DJI	Phantom	2	Vision+	(“P2”)	in	allrelevant	respects:

o		Gross	weight:	P3=1280g;	P2=1242g.

o		Diagonal	Size	(including	propellers):	P3=590mm;	P2=579mm.

o		Maximum	Ascent	Speed:	P3=5m/sec;	P2=6m/sec.

o		Maximum	Descent	Speed:	P3=3m/sec;	P2=2m/sec.

o		Vertical	Hover	Accuracy:	P3=+/-10cm;	P2=+/-80cm.

o		Horizontal	Hover	Accuracy:	P3=+/-1m;	P2=+/-2.5m.

o		Maximum	Speed:	P3=16m/sec;	P2=15m/sec.

The	findings,	rationale	and	conclusions	contained	in	the	FAA’s	Exemption	No.	

11923	apply	without	modification	to	this	application	to	include	the	DJI	

Phantom	3	model	in	Exemption	No.	11923.

Thank	you	for	your	consideration	of	this	important	request.	Please	advise	me	

of	any	additional	information	that	is	required.

Sincerely,

Paul	Seiden

email:	pcseiden1@gmail.com
130. 83-468 INTHE SUPFaME COURT OF THE STATEOF MONTANA 1984

STATEOF MONTANA, ex rel., COLONEL ROBERT LANDON,Chief of Montana Highway Patrol, Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vsTHOMAS CARL MACEK, Defendantand Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable William J. Speare, Judgepresiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
ForAppellant: Stephens & Cole;Robert L. Stephens,Jr., Billings, Montana
For Respondent: Harold F. Hanser,CountyAttorney, Billings, Montana

- - -" Submitted on Briefs: December 22, 1983 Decided: February 9,1984

J b, 

## 1954 Filed:

ClerkMr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant Thomas Carl Macek appeals from the order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court declaring him to be a habitual traffic offender under section 61-11-203(2), MCA. We affirm. The certificate of record from theMontana Motor Vehicle Division shows seven speeding violations at three points each and one DUI at ten points. One of the speeding violations used in the habitual offender calculationwas a violation of Washington State's 55 m.p.h. interstate highway night speed limit. Defendantwas driving at a rate of 69m.p.h. The only issue on appeal is whether a violation of a sister state's 55 m.p.h. speed limit can be included in the calculation of habitual traffic offenderpoints. Defendant argues thatviolations ofMontana speed limits mandated by the federal fuel conservation conditionsmay not be included in the calculation. Section 61-11-103, MCA. Defendant reasons that his Washington State violation is also
a violation of the federally imposed standard and therefore should notbe included. We disagree. Defendant's Washington violation would also be a violation of this state's 65 m.p.h. jnterstate highway nighttime speed limit; itwould not merely be a conservation violation. Section 61-8-303(2)(c)

## , MCA. The State of Montana has adopted a Driver License Compact that gives effect to violations committed in other jurisdictions. Section 61-5-401, MCA. Article IV of that compact provides in part that, "the licensing authority in the home state shall give such effect to the conduct [resulting in out-of-state conviction] as is provided by the laws of the home state." The violation in Washington would have been aviolation in Montana. Thus, the Washington State speeding violation was correctly treated as a speeding violation adding 3 points to the habitual traffic offender calculation. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

We Concur: