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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DUANE MONTRIK BURTON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (7:00-cr-00105-F-1) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Duane Montrik Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 

Michael Gordon James, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Duane Montrik Burton appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Burton, 

No. 7:00-cr-00105-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2009). We further deny 

Burton’s request 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. 

AFFIRMED
No. 61105.

protests 309970-K, etc. (New York).

#### George Shluger and W. J. Byrnes *&*Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643) or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in the cases of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and C. D. 1643, *supra.*
#### Donna GAZELLE; Harry Gazelle, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Leo DEROBERTIS, Jr.; Dick Simon Trucking, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees, and John M. McNeil, Jr.; Simon Transportation Services, Incorporated, Defendants.

No. 01-1028.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 2001.

Decided July 19, 2001.

Thomas R. Wolf, Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, for appellants. David L. Yaussy, Brian R. Swiger, Robinson *&*McElwee, P.L.L.C., Charleston, WV, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Donna and Harry Gazelle appeal the district court judgment enforcing a settlement agreement. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Gazelle v. DeRobertis,*No. CA-98-336-1 (S.D.W.Va. Nov. 11, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
No. 63374.

protests 58/13642, etc. (New York).

#### Burleigh Brooks, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photographic lenses similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61631, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**AUDIT AND COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE REPORT**

 

The Audit and Compliance Committee of the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (Seattle Bank) consists of six directors, tworepresenting the public interest and four representing industry members. The members of the Audit and Compliance Committee are Craig E. Dahl (chair), William V. Humphreys (vice chair), Harold B. Gilkey, Cynthia A. Parker, Jack T. Riggs, and GordonZimmerman. The Audit and Compliance Committee members are independent, as defined by the Federal Housing Finance Board. 

 

The Audit and Compliance Committee oversees the Seattle Bank’s financial reporting process; reviews compliance with laws, regulations, policies, andprocedures; and evaluates the adequacy of administrative, operating, and internal controls. The Audit and Compliance Committee has adopted and is governed by a written charter. 

 

In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Audit and Compliance Committee has reviewed and discussed with the SeattleBank’s management and its independent auditors the audited financial statements and the independent auditors report thereon. In addition, the Audit and Compliance Committee has discussed with the independent auditor the matters required to bediscussed by Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 61, as modified and supplemented. The Audit and Compliance Committee has also received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditor required by Independence StandardsBoard (ISB) Standard No. 1, “Independence Discussions with Audit Committees,” as modified and supplemented, and has discussed with the independent auditor its independence. 

 

Based on the review and discussions referred to above, the current Audit and Compliance Committee recommended to the Boardof Directors that the 2007 audited financial statements be included in the Seattle Bank’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

Craig E. Dahl, chair 

 

William V. Humphreys, vice chair 

 

Harold B. Gilkey 

 

Cynthia A.Parker 

 

Jack T. Riggs, M.D. 

 

Gordon Zimmerman
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                              SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                           1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

     The 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") of College Television Network,
Inc. (the "Company") (formerly Laser Video Network, Inc.) is hereby amended as
follows:


                                       1.

     Section 1.5.1 of the Plan is amended by deleting the first sentence thereof
in its entirety and substituting therefor the following new first sentence: "The
total number of shares of common stock of the Company, par value $.005 per share
("Common Stock"), with respect to which awards may be granted pursuant to the
Plan shall be 333,334 shares, which amount shall be increased by 33,333 shares
on January 1, 1999 and shall be increased by another 33,333 shares on January 1,
2000, so that the total amount of shares issuable under the Plan shall be
400,000 shares."


                                       2.
    
     The foregoing amendment shall be effective as of the later of (i) June 3,
1998 or (ii) the date which is 20 days after mailing an Information Statement to
Shareholders disclosing the approval of the amendment by the holder of a
majority of the outstanding common stock of the Company, in the manner required
by Section 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     

                                       1
#### Ronnie L. EDWARDS; Paula E. Nickens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROBERTS-ROBERTS ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant—Appellee, and Michael Roberts; Kay Gabbert, Defendants.

No. 05-1235.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 29, 2005.

Decided Aug. 25, 2005.

Ronnie L. Edwards, Paula E. Nickens, Appellants Pro Se. Marie Celeste Bruce, Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*219Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie L. Edwards and Paula E. Nick-ens appeal the district court’s orders granting their former employer’s motion for summary judgment and denying their motion for reconsideration in their civil action in which they alleged employment discrimination and retaliation claims. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

The court’s order that granted summary judgment in favor of the employer was entered on the court’s docket on March 8, 2004. Under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), the Appellants had thirty days in which to appeal that order. Even if the Appellants were not aware of the court’s final order until October 29, 2004, they never moved for reopening of the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). Further, even had the Appellants explicitly requested reopening under Rule 4(a)(6)(A), the district court would have been unable to do so because the Appellants could not satisfy the time limits set forth in that subsection. Therefore, their notice of appeal filed in the district court on February 18, 2005, was untimely as to the court’s order entered on March 8, 2004. We therefore dismiss the appeal as untimely as to that order.

The notice of appeal is timely as to the court’s January 26, 2005 order that denied the Appellants’ motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error as to the court’s denial of that motion. Accordingly, we affirm that order substantially on the reasoning stated by the district court.**See Edwards v. Roberts-Roberts Assoc., LLC,*No. CA-02-4078-8-AW (D. Md. filed Jan. 26, 2005 & entered Jan. 27, 2005). We deny the Appellants’ motion to strike the Appellee’s brief. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*

*

 We disagree with the district court’s analysis that its local rule rendered Appellants' motion to reconsider untimely. The local rule provides: "Except as otherwise provided in Fed. R.Civ.P. 60, any motion to reconsider any order issued by the Court shall be filed with the Clerk not later than 10 days after entry of the order.” Local Rule 105(10) (D.Md.2004). Rule 60(b) provides ."[t]he motion shall be made within a reasonable time” and for limited reasons "not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.” Nevertheless, we conclude that the Appellants were not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b).
Before the First Division,

December 23, 1964

No. 68969.

#### Aristo-Craft Distinctive Miniatures *v.*United States,

protest 61/20560 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60269.

protest 265808-K (Providence).

#### John F. Allen & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 59105, except that said stones are not faceted, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 55676.

protest 951170-G (Denver).

#### Montgomery Ward & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") by DirectView Holdings, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, Roger Ralston, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, 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.





/s/Roger RalstonName: Roger RalstonTitle: Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer





Dated: April 14, 2010





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.
No. 67178.

protests 62/4406 and 62/4409 (Portland, Oreg.).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*295Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe merchandise consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                              SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                   OUTSIDE DIRECTORS' 1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                        

     The Outside Directors' 1996 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") of College
Television Network, Inc. (the "Company") (formerly Laser Video Network, Inc.) is
hereby amended as follows:


                                       1.

     Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended by deleting the second sentence thereof
in its entirety and substituting therefor the following new second sentence:
"Subject to Section 3(b), the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock of the
Company which may be transferred pursuant to the Plan shall be 240,000."


                                       2.

     Section 6(b) of the Plan is amended by deleting the second sentence thereof
in its entirety and substituting therefor the following new second sentence:
"Each Option granted under the Plan shall contain such vesting terms as
determined by the Board and included in the applicable stock option agreement."


                                       3.

     The foregoing amendment shall be effective as of the later of (i) June 3,
1998 or (ii) the date which is 20 days after mailing an Information Statement to
Shareholders disclosing the approval of the amendment by the holder of a
majority of the outstanding common stock of the Company, in the manner required
by Section 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                       1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Gene SCRIBNER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30488.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 2, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 10, 2005.

James P. Hagarty, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Michael W. Lynch, Esq., Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: NOONAN, T.G. NELSON, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*634MEMORANDUM **

William Gene Scribner appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm his conviction. We remand his sentence under *United States v. Ameline.**1***Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

The district court properly denied Scribner’s motion to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct.2 The Government’s conduct was not outrageous because the Government did not “initiate the criminal activity,” but merely worked in concert with Scribner and his co-defendant.3

The district court properly denied Scribner’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment.4 An entrapment instruction was not warranted because no evidence indicated that the Government induced Scribner to participate in criminal activity.5 Accordingly, we affirm Scribner’s conviction.

We review Scribner’s unpreserved *Booker*claim for plain error.6 We cannot determine from the record whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence if it had known that the Guidelines were advisory, as the Supreme Court held in *United States v. Booker.**7***Therefore, under *Armline,*we remand for the limited purpose of making that determination.8 In fulfilling this mandate, the district court may hold such hearings and enter such orders as it determines to be necessary, including, without limitation, modifying or vacating its previous sentence.

Conviction AFFIRMED; Sentence REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005).

2

. *United States v. Bridges,*344 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that the panel reviews a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment based on outrageous government conduct de novo).

3

. *United States v. Gurolla,*333 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir.2003).

4

. *See United States v. McGeshick,*41 F.3d 419, 421 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that the panel reviews the district court’s failure to give a requested instruction de novo).

5

. *See Gurolla,*333 F.3d at 957.

6

. *Ameline,*409 F.3d at 1078.

7

. — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

8

. *See Ameline,*409 F.3d at 1084.
Exhibit 10.2







AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL, INC.












March __, 2018







OMS Investments Inc.


10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2800


Los Angeles, California 90067


Attn: Luis A. Rodriguez


Assistant Secretary







Re: Technology License Agreement, Notice of Renewal per Section 8.2


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:







OMS INVESTMENTS, INC., a Delaware corporation having offices at 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90067 ("OMS"), and AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nevada corporation having offices at 6075 Longbow Dr., Suite 200, Boulder, Colorado 80301 ("AeroGrow") are parties to a certain Technology License Agreement having an effective date of April 22, 2013 (as supplemented and amended, the License Agreement").







Although said License Agreement has an initial term expiring March 31, 2018, Section 8.2 thereof permits Aerogrow to renew the term of the License Agreement for additional five-year terms by providing written notice to OMS at least six months in advance of the expiration of the initial term (or the then-effective renewal term).







AeroGrow hereby requests a one-time waiver from OMS of any deficiency by AeroGrow in renewing the License Agreement pursuant to Section 8.2 of the License Agreement.  By signing below, OMS hereby grants such one-time waiver so that the initial term of the Agreement will be renewed for an additional five-year period (ending on March 31, 2023). No other waiver of the License Agreement is contemplated pursuant hereto and all terms of the License Agreement, including Section 8.2, shall remain in full force and effect.







	 	
Sincerely


 


AeroGrow International, Inc.


 


By:_________________________


Name:


Title:


	
Acknowledged and Agreed:


 


OMS Investments, Inc.


 


By:_________________________


Name:


Title:
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-2 Filed 02/22/12 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-2 Filed 02/22/12 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-2 Filed 02/22/12 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-2 Filed 02/22/12 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-2 Filed 02/22/12 Page 5 of 5
#### LIFESCAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOME DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant, and MIT Development Corp., (now part of Home Diagnostics, Inc.), Defendant.

Nos. 00-1485, 00-1486.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2001.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>

                                   ECOLAB INC.
                           1995 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1


Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Ecolab Inc. 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock
Option Plan ("Plan") and resolutions of the Company's Board of Directors, dated
February 25, 2000, the Company amends the Plan as set forth below. Words and
phrases used herein with initial capital letters which are defined in the Plan
are used herein as so defined.

1.   Paragraph 8 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     "8.  EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF THE PLAN. The Plan shall be effective
     on the date of adoption by the stockholders of the Company. The Plan shall
     terminate at midnight on June 30, 2001, and may be terminated prior thereto
     by action of the Board of Directors, and no Option shall be granted after
     such termination. Options outstanding upon termination of the Plan may
     continue to be exercised in accordance with their terms."

2.   This amendment shall be effective as of February 25, 2000.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its
authorized officers and its corporate seal affixed, this 2nd day of March, 2000.

                                      ECOLAB INC.


(Seal)                                By: /s/ Kenneth A. Iverson
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Kenneth A. Iverson
                                          Vice President and Secretary



Attest: /s/ Sheila B. Holt
        ----------------------------------
        Sheila B. Holt
#### Jerry D. DWIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. ANDERSON; Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6142.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 5, 2001.

Decided June 28, 2001.

Jerry D. Dwiggins, pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jerry D. Dwiggins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record 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. *Dwiggins v. Anderson,*No. CA-00-243-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 19 & 27, 2000). 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.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

               ADDENDUM TO NOVEMBER 21, 1999 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS ADDENDUM dated as of January 1, 1999, is to that certain EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") dated as of November 21, 1998 by and among
Snowboard Corsaire, Inc. ("Corsaire"), and William R. Dunavant ("Dunavant")


                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, the parties have determined that the Agreement needs to be
modified in certain respects; and

     WHEREAS, the parties are simultaneously excuting the Agreement and this
Addendum.

     NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

     The following numbered paragraph in the Agreement shall be replaced in its
entirety by the following paragraph. All other paragraphs in the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by reference.

     5.   STOCK COMPENSATION. In addition to a salary to be determined by the
new Board of Directors, Corsaire agrees to issue to Dunavant TWO MILLION
(2,000,000) shares of Corsaire common stock upon execution of this Addendum.
Said shares are subject to the Company's absolute right of cancellation if
Dunavant has not become president of Corsaire on or before March 31, 1999.

AGREED AND ACCEPTED on this 1st day January, 1999.


                                    Snowboard Corsaire, Inc.

/s/ William R. Dunavant             By: /s/ Rene Hamouth
------------------------               ----------------------------------------
    William R. Dunavant                Rene Hamouth, President and Sole Director