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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6154

WILLIAM HENRY MULDROW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-01477-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Henry Muldrow, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Henry Muldrow, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Muldrow v. Wilson, No. 1:13-cv-01477-AJTIDD (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 75 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 75 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
10.7


 


LEGACY
ACQUISITION CORP.


1308
Race Street, Suite 200


Cincinnati,
OH 45202


 


 


November
16, 2017


 


Legacy
Acquisition Sponsor, LLC


312
Walnut Street, Floor 1


Cincinnati,
OH 45202 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the
registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of Legacy Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i)
the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described
in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
Legacy Acquisition Sponsor I LLC shall make available to the Company certain office space, utilities, secretarial support and
other administrative and consulting services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 1308 Race Street,
Suite 200, Cincinnati, OH 45202 (or any successor location). In exchange therefor, the Company shall pay Legacy Acquisition
Sponsor I LLC the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.
Legacy Acquisition Sponsor I LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to
any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established upon
the consummation of the IPO as a result of this letter agreement (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any
Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, this letter agreement and will not seek recourse against the
Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	LEGACY ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Edwin
    J. Rigaud
	 	 	Name: Edwin
    J. Rigaud
	 	 	Title: Chief
    Executive Officer


 


AGREED
TO AND ACCEPTED BY:


 


	LEGACY ACQUISITION SPONSOR I
    LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Edwin
    J. Rigaud	 
	 	Name: Edwin J. Rigaud	 
	 	Title: Managing
    Member
5871 Honeysuckle Road, Prescott, AZ 86305-3764


(T): 928.515.1942  (F): 928.515.1943












EXHIBIT 10.20












PROMISSORY NOTE







	
$25,000.00

	
February 12, 2018















FOR VALUE RECEIVED, El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. (“MAKER”), promises to pay to Robert W. Shirk Revocable Trust Dated January, 2018, (LENDER), THE SUM OF Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), with interest thereon at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum from February 12, 2018, on a 365 day basis, interest due at maturity. Payment of this Note, including principal and interest, shall be made by MAKER on or before August 12, 2018 (the DUE DATE). Payments shall first be applied to interest due and then thereafter to principal.







MAKER, agree to pay this Note and accrued interest and waives demand, presentment, protest and notice of dishonor, and agrees that, without notice, any indebtedness represented by this Note may from time to time be renewed or extended by the Parties at the discretion of the LENDER and in such event, the liability shall continue hereunder upon the indebtedness as so renewed or extended and agrees in case of any default under this Note to pay all costs of collections, including reasonable attorney fees.







MAKER, at its option, may make prepayments of principal and interest at time without any penalty.












DATED this 12th day of February, 2018.







	 	
EL CAPITAN PRECIOUS METALS, INC.


	 	 
	 	
	 	 
	 	
John F. Stapleton


CEO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sarafin Santiago, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 622]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered June 24, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly closed the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer was not preserved for appellate review because the defendant never raised that contention at trial *(see, People v Pearson,*82 NY2d 436, 444; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, this contention is without merit. The officer testified that he expected to return to the defendant’s arrest area, had received threats, and had taken several precautions to preserve his identity in his frequent appearances before the Grand Jury and the court. These facts sufficiently established a link between the officer’s concern for safety and his open-court testimony as required under *People v Martinez*(82 NY2d *629436, 442; see *also, People v Skinner,*204 AD2d 664; *People v Jamison,*203 AD2d 385).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**HYDRODYNEX, INC.**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

In connection with the periodic Report of HYDRODYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jerod Edington, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of 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.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: September 30, 2013

 

/s/ Jerod Edington

Jerod Edington

President and Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operation Officer,

VP, Treasurer, Secretary, Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Surles JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-11016

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2005.

Leigha Amy Simonton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert D. Burns, III, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*395Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sharon Surles Johnson appeals her sentence for fraudulent use of a social security number in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). She argues that the district court committed error under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), when it added seven offense levels to her base offense level for the amount of loss attributable to her offense conduct.

Johnson preserved this issue by arguing that her sentence violated *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). *See United States v. Akpan,*407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th Cir.2005). Because it sentenced Johnson based on conduct that was neither admitted by Johnson nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the district court committed error under *Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 756.

The Government argues that the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would not have sentenced Johnson differently had it acted under advisory Guidelines. The Government’s arguments do not meet the “arduous” burden of demonstrating “beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sixth Amendment *Booker*error» did not affect the sentence.” *See United States v. Pineiro,*410 F.3d 282, 284-85, 287 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Johnson’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. *See id.*at 285-87.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit






PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
2801 HIGHWAY 280 SOUTH
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35223


ENDORSEMENT


The Contract to which this Endorsement is attached is amended as of its Contract Date as follows:


WAIVER OF SURRENDER CHARGES


The provision entitled "Waiver of Surrender Charges" that appears in the Section entitled "Surrenders -- Termination" is deleted in its entirety and a new "Waiver of Surrender Charges" provision is inserted in lieu thereof to read as follows:


WAIVER OF SURRENDER CHARGES
We will waive any applicable Surrender Charges if at any time after the first Contract Year:
(1)    you are first diagnosed as having a Terminal Illness by a Physician that is not related to you or the Annuitant, or
(2)    you enter for a period of at least ninety (90) days a facility which is:
(a)    licensed by the state and
(b)    qualifies as  a skilled nursing home facility under Medicare or Medicaid.
The term Terminal Illness means that you are diagnosed as having a noncorrectable medical condition that, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, will result in your death in less than 12 months. Written proof satisfactory to the Company must be submitted. The Company reserves the right to require an examination by a physician of its choice.


Signed for the Company as of the effective date, which is the Contract Date.


PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Secretary




IPD-2023
## COLL[EN W. HANABUSA ^5f I!..n-rc.' HnV:..

...,o ,v . , i, r.i;
^^^^,. ,: ^.

. ^ ^ „

^i . ^ M N . ..r,, -loc n.t 4 ^ G Hr^r^niaii hll )3E3Ei0 iFC^u^af: 8nF .i41 2570 i,^x tsJ 93^-0733 

# ! ; 1 i:^.i , '^ '•,,, . Ili(JI^^^ ^^ 

# t^or^g^e^s o^ t^je ^t^irc^ ^t^tte^ ^^o^t^e of ^e^t e^entatibe^ 'tC^lrt^l^htgto^^t, ^3^ 2051;^-1101 C:OMMITTEE C)N AIiMED S( ftVlCl::S

..^^r i
. ^^._ Ni a^ iu _ ^^, ^.^^^.^,^^ ^ ^^,.<<:r^,^^ ,^^^^s 

### t.:ON1MITTEF ON NATURAL. Rf_ ;OURCc5 ^:^rn i.e^^. I^^uinN irvn Ai n K. NnnvE^. Arr.^ika

^fiF+NK J( h'1 Mf3I^^N^^ f.N_i7^^iY ANli MINr.FI)11. Rt^ r^ Jfi^'Fi

Pul^a:.iL Lntv[rs nN^7 [-.NVIF1UNMf^:N'f ;1_ HFlitlL^lrIC1N


# June 28, 2013 Mr. Bob Perciasepe Acting Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Acting Administrator Perciasepe: I write today regarding my concern for Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule amending 40 CFR Parts 280 and 281; Revisions to Existing Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training (EPA -HQ-UST-2011-0301), which was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2011. I am particularly concerned about this proposal's impact on operators in my home state of Hawaii, as compliance could be disproportionately burdensome due to the expense of logistics, the limited number of trained personnel in the state and the rural location of many small sites. For example, one of the tests required by the proposal generates hazardous waste material and the only way for operators on the neighbor islands such as Maui or Kauai to properly dispose of the material is to physically ship it to Oahu. Another issue I find troubling is the discrepancy between the EPA's cost estimates for the rule's implementation and the industry's cost estimates. Given this discrepancy and the possible impact on Hawaii small businesses, I request the EPA pull the proposed rule and form a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to further evaluate compliance costs. While my preference would not be to pull the proposed rule, I understand that in order to form a SBAR panel, that a rule must be officially pulled and then reintroduced at a later date. I believe the SBAR panel's input will allow small operators, like those in Hawaii, the opportunity to have a seat at the table in developing the new rule and will ultimately lead to a proposal with lower compliance costs while still achieving environmental gains. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your response. Sincer y,

Colleen^.Hanabusa ^ Member of Congress

NHIIJ1Ef) ON RtS^YCLIiD PAPEH
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6328

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLYDE DIAL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:02-cr-00090-F-1)

Submitted: November 16, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clyde Dial, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf 

A. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clyde Dial, Jr. appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction 

in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Dial, No. 7:02-cr-00090-F-1 

(E.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
** **

**Exhibit 32.1 /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 thefiling of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) by IC PunchMedia, Inc. (the “Registrant”), I, Steven Samblis, 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  conditions and results of operations of Registrant. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: April 15, 2013

 

*/s/ Steven Samblis*

________________________

Steven Samblis

Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer
No. 62813.

#### Joseph Victori *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/22212 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of olives in brine similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 1917), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

                             Chief Executive Officer

The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Allied Healthcare Products,
Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
that (i) the Company'S Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Company's fiscal
quarter ending December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February the 10th, 2005, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

                             /s/ Earl R. Refsland
                             --------------------------------------------
                                 Earl R. Refsland, Chief Executive Officer

                                 February 10, 2005
From: fundeal@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:32:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Amy Buxbaum

Montgomery, AL 36109
No. 58703.

protest 234510-K (New York).

#### Bridgetts & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 68412.

protest 60/24514 (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

*307Opinion by

Ouver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question consist of carbon arc lamps wholly or in chief value of iron or steel and that they are only accessories for use with optical instruments and not parts thereof, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Petitioner’s objection to respondent’s second request for an extension of time was posted as

a motion and was noted on the Court’s motion calendar. However, there is no need to consider

petitioner’s objection as an independent motion because the Court considered the arguments

presented therein when ruling on respondent’s second motion for extension of time. Petitioner’s

objection (Dkt. No. 11) should therefore be STRICKEN from the Court’s motion calendar.

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ANTHONY J. PANARELLO, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C06-124-JCC-JPD

)

v. )

)

RICHARD MORGAN, ) ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

) SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

Respondent. ) OF TIME

____________________________________)

The Court, having considered respondent’s second motion for extension of time, petitioner’s

objection thereto, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Respondent’s second motion for an extension of time to file an answer to petitioner’s

federal habeas petition (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED. Respondent’s answer was received by the Court

on June 16, 2006, and has been made a part of the record.1

Case 2:06-cv-00124-JCC Document 16 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE - 2

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.

DATED this 21st day of June, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00124-JCC Document 16 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2