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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6283

BILLY EDWARD GRIMES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT LAMM,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:09-hc-02021-FL)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Edward Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Edward Grimes seeks to appeal the district 

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

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

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

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

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

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

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

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

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

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

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

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

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

and conclude that Grimes has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
#### John Fischer, *Appellant, v.*J. C. Julius Langbein and another, *Respondents.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Brady, J.-
§ 92.20-40 Other spaces. Each vessel must have— ( a ) Sufficient facilities where the crew may wash and dry their own clothes, including at least 1 sink supplied with hot and cold fresh water;
( b ) Recreation spaces; and
( c ) A space or spaces of adequate size on an open deck to which the crew has access when off duty.
[CGD 95-027, 61 FR 26005, May 23, 1996; 61 FR 32900, June 25, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1786 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1786

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1996

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
            To regulate fishing in certain waters of Alaska.

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

SECTION 1. DESCENDANTS' LAND USE.

    (a) In General.--Local residents who are descendants of Katmai 
residents who lived in the Naknek Lake and River Drainage shall be 
permitted, subject to reasonable regulations established by the 
Secretary of the Interior, to continue their traditional fishery for 
red fish within Katmai National Park (the national park and national 
preserve redesignated, established, and expanded under section 202(2) 
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
410hh-1)).
    (b) Red Fish Defined.--For the purposes of subsection (a), the term 
``red fish'' means spawned-out sockeye salmon that has no significant 
commercial value.

SEC. 2. EFFECT ON TITLE AND JURISDICTION OF TIDAL AND SUBMERGED LANDS.

    (a) Title.--No provision of this Act shall be construed to 
invalidate or validate or in any other way affect any claim by the 
State of Alaska to title to any or all submerged lands, nor shall any 
actions taken pursuant to or in accordance with this Act operate under 
any provision or principle of the law to bar the State of Alaska from 
asserting at any time its claim of title to any or all of the submerged 
lands.
    (b) Jurisdiction.--Nothing in this Act nor in any actions taken 
pursuant to this Act shall be construed as expanding or diminishing 
Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in 
management, regulation, or control over waters of the State of Alaska 
or submerged lands under any provision of Federal or State law.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### John A. McVean, *Respondent, v.*Jerome Squires and others, *Administrators, etc.,*Appellants.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ Robert L. ButchofskyRobert L. ButchofskyPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)QLT Inc.
 128
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 2:15-cv-12329

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (document no. 21),DENYING 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 16), AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no.19)

The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied the

application of Harold Hicks for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance

Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge. See Admin. R. 16–34, ECF

No. 14-2. After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ruling, Hicks appealed. The

Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, and the parties

filed cross-motions for summary judgment. See Mots. Summ. J., ECF Nos. 16, 19. The

magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court

deny Hicks's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. Report, ECF No. 21.

Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 

De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is only required if the parties "serve and

file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(2). Because neither party filed objections, de novo review of the Report's

conclusions is not required. After reviewing the record, the Court finds that the magistrate

judge's conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, the Court will adopt

2:15-cv-12329-SJM-SDD Doc # 22 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 587
the Report's findings, deny Hicks's motion for summary judgment, and grant the

Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation (document no. 21) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hicks's Motion for Summary Judgment (document

no. 16) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 19) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: August 31, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on August 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-12329-SJM-SDD Doc # 22 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 588
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000701719
<NAME>                          Dallas Gold & Silver Exchange, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                                               US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                            SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                   1
<CASH>                                                          156
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   793
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                   7,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              8,311
<PP&E>                                                        2,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               12,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         5,408
<BONDS>                                                       1,682
<COMMON>                                                         49
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    5,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 12,447
<SALES>                                                      16,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             17,680
<CGS>                                                        12,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                16,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 660
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    224
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             436
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    436
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   .09


</TABLE>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending March 17, 2007

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------------ | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|First Priority Financial Corp. | * 3A1         | First Priority Financial Corp., Malvern, PA, to form a bank holding company by acquiring First Priority Bank, Malvern, PA | Newspaper:04/19/2007Federal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                     | 04/19/2007   
|Federal Register:              | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 78.47-7 General alarm bells. ( a ) All general alarm bells shall be identified by red lettering at least 1 ⁄ 2 inch high: “GENERAL ALARM—WHEN BELL RINGS GO TO YOUR STATION.”
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 78.30-15 Watchmen. ( a ) The provisions of this section shall apply to all vessels not required to have a supervised patrol under the provisions of § 78.30-10. This section shall be applicable at all times when passengers are on board.
( b ) During the nighttime, a suitable number of watchmen shall be stationed in the passenger accommodation areas on each deck.
( c ) Watchmen shall be under the direct charge of the master or officer in command of the vessel, and shall report to such officer at the pilothouse at fixed intervals not exceeding one hour. Watchmen shall not be required to perform any other duties while on watch.
( d ) The uniform of the night watchman shall be conspicuously different from other persons so as to be readily distinguished. A rating badge marked “Watchman” shall be worn on the left sleeve and the front of the cap shall also be marked “Watchman”.
( e ) The watchman shall have in his possession at all time while on duty an efficient flashlight.
**Exhibit 32.1** CERTIFICATION     Pursuant to    18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Scott D. Kaplan, Chief    Executive Officer of Pruco Life Insurance Company of    New Jersey, hereby certify that the accompanying Annual    Report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2006, containing the    financial statements of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable    Contract Real Property Account (a separate account of Pruco Life    Insurance Company of New Jersey) and The Prudential Variable    Contract Real Property Partnership (the “Report”),    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13    (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934    and that the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable    Contract Real Property Account and The Prudential Variable    Contract Real Property Partnership.     Date: March 23,    2007     /s/Scott D. KaplanName: Scott D.    Kaplan    Title: Chief    Executive Officer      The foregoing    certification is being furnished solely pursuant to    18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part    of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending September 11, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”), is made as of February 1, 2005, by and between MAYOR’S JEWELERS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the
“EMPLOYER”) and THOMAS A. ANDRUSKEVICH, domiciled in New Jersey (the “EXECUTIVE”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the EMPLOYER and the EXECUTIVE are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of October 29, 2002 (the “Employment
Agreement”), pursuant to which the EMPLOYER agreed to hire the EXECUTIVE upon the terms and conditions contained therein; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to confirm and document certain modifications and changes to the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
premises and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Amendment to Employment Agreement 

  

	 	a.	The last sentence of Section 4.2 of the Amended Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

  
 4.2 The EMPLOYER shall pay the entire annual bonus (if any)
that is payable with respect to a fiscal year in a lump sum cash payment as soon as practicable after the Compensation Committee can determine whether the performance goals have been achieved based on the EMPLOYER’s audited financial results
for such year but no later than the earlier of two and one half months after such fiscal year end or the date on which the audited financial statements are completed and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

	 	2.	Full Force and Effect. All of the provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect except as expressly modified by this Amendment.


  

	 	3.	Counterparts. The parties may sign this Amendment, which may be delivered by facsimile, in counterparts. Each signed counterpart will be an original; and all of them
constitute one and the same agreement. 

  
 NOW
THEREFORE, the parties have entered into this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. 
  

					
	EMPLOYER	 	EXECUTIVE
		
	 MAYOR’S JEWELERS, INC.
	 	 
		
	 /s/ Marc Weinstein

	 	 /s/ Thomas A. Andruskevich


	 By:
	 	 Marc Weinstein
	 
	 Its:
	 	 Senior Vice President & Chief Administrative Officer
	 	THOMAS A. ANDRUSKEVICH
#### Charles H. Jordan, *Respondent, v.*Bernard Reilly, *Appellant.*

— Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

NOVI PROMENADE ASSOCIATES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and

LANDON DEVELOPMENT CORP.,

Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants,

Case No. 02-CV-72890

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

TARGET CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

_________________________/

A M E N D E D J U D G M E N T

The above-entitled matter, in which this court conducted a bench trial and in

which an initial judgment issued on September 30, 2005, has again come before the

court on plaintiffs’ and defendant’s post-judgment motions. An amendment to the

original judgment is necessary in accordance with the court’s ruling on those postjudgment motions, issued on March 31, 2006.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby

GRANTED in favor of plaintiffs as set forth in this court’s September 30, 2005 order in

the amounts identified. Judgment is also GRANTED in favor of defendant/counter2:02-cv-72890-GCS Doc # 148 Filed 04/11/06 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2435
plaintiff, in the amount of $3,194,225.00, which is the net sum after offsetting the

amount awarded to plaintiffs, plus pre-judgment interest as set forth in the court’s March

31, 2006 order.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

By: s/Marcia Beauchemin

 Deputy Clerk

Dated: April 11, 2006

Detroit, Michigan.

2:02-cv-72890-GCS Doc # 148 Filed 04/11/06 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2436
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending July 31, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us