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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALFANCO DEXTER BRITTON, a/k/a Mike, a/k/a Mann, a/k/a Alfanco, a/k/a 

Alphonso Britton,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00014-MFU-RSB-2; 

5:15-cv-80805-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfanco Dexter Britton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfanco Dexter Britton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 motion 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 Britton 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 before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 1 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 2 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 3 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 4 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 5 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 6 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 7 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 8 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 9 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 10 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 11 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 12 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 13 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 14 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 15 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 16 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 17 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 18 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 19 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 20 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 21 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 22 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 23 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 24 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 25 of 26
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 198-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 26 of 26
No. 51344.

#### Protests 53857-K, etc., of Society Gloves et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser*& *Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SONIA HERNANDEZ, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff : 

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE BARNHART, :

Commissioner of :

Social Security, :

:

Defendant : NO. 04-5458

JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2005, in accordance with the

Court’s separate Order dated this same date, granting Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Kadelski v. Sullivan, 30

F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 1994) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendant,

Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration, and against Plaintiff, Sonia Hernandez.

BY THE COURT:

s/ John R. Padova 

John R. Padova, J.

Case 2:04-cv-05458-JP Document 14 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 1
# C_2016165EN.01002201.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/22

---

Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Frontex

(Case F-12/16)

(2016/C 165/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and for damages for the harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 in respect of the harm suffered in connection with the adoption of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 in respect of the harm suffered in connection with the adoption of that decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
No. 63024.

#### Richter Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/17287 and 58/17622 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fried herring similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Richter Bros.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 128, C.A.D. 649), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 40      Filed 02/13/2003     Page 1 of 6

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 40      Filed 02/13/2003     Page 2 of 6

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 40      Filed 02/13/2003     Page 3 of 6

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 40      Filed 02/13/2003     Page 4 of 6

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 40      Filed 02/13/2003     Page 5 of 6

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP     Document 40      Filed 02/13/2003     Page 6 of 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GENEVA STEEL
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, INCLUDING THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,579
<INVENTORY>                                     58,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,342
<PP&E>                                         662,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                 319,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 483,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,066
<BONDS>                                        325,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           56,757
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,018
<OTHER-SE>                                   (249,725)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   483,790
<SALES>                                        564,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               564,233
<CGS>                                          560,451
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  560,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,488
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,366)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,971)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.58)


</TABLE>
BO1 15865262.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HILTON M. RIDLEY, : 

 : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-CV-3860 

 Plaintiff, : 

 vs. : 

 : 

COSTCO WHOLESALE, CORP., : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 

NOTICE OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

 Plaintiff, in the above captioned action, Hilton M. Ridley, by his attorneys, hereby gives 

notice that the judgment as entered by this Court on October 19, 2005, and amended by the Third 

Circuit in this case on June 6, 2007, and subsequently revised by the District Court on July 17, 

2007, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Costco Wholesale Corp. has been satisfied in 

full. By this Satisfaction Of Judgment, Mr. Ridley acknowledges and agrees that he has no 

further rights to enforce the Judgment against Costco. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

__s/Ralph E. Lamar, IV______ 

 Ralph E. Lamar, IV 

 141 Spruce Lane 

Collegeville, PA 19426 

 (610) 831-5181 

 (610) 831-0680 facsimile 

 PA State Bar No. 78974 

__s/Carmen Matos___________ 

 Carmen Matos 

40 East Court Street, 3d Floor 

Doylestown, PA 18901 

(215)345-8550 

(215) 345-8551 facsimile 

 PA State Bar No. 32795 

 

Case 2:04-cv-03860-JS Document 127 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2 

BO1 15865262.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Ralph Lamar, IV, Esquire, hereby certify that on July 23, 2007, true and correct copies 

of this Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment were sent via electronic mail and U.S. Mail First class 

Delivery to the following counsel of record for Defendant, Costco Wholesale Corp.: 

Lynn A. Kappelman, Esq. 

Devjani Mishra, Esq. 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2500 

New York, New York 10020-1801 

(212) 218-5500 

BILLET & CONNOR 

2000 Market Street, Suite 2803 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-3201 

(215) 496-7500

 

 By: ___s/Ralph E. Lamar, IV_________ 

 Ralph Lamar 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 2:04-cv-03860-JS Document 127 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-03747-MMB Document 54 Filed 06/23/09 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-03747-MMB Document 54 Filed 06/23/09 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-03747-MMB Document 54 Filed 06/23/09 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-03747-MMB Document 54 Filed 06/23/09 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 99.1

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Dale G. Rettinger, the Chief Financial Officer of PDC 2000-C Limited Partnership, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

_/s/ Dale G. Rettinger                       

Name: Dale G. Rettinger

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: __March 25, 2003_________
No. 51621.

#### Protests 639647-G, etc., of Gimbel Bros., Inc., Delaware (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser*& *Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Douglas J. Goddard, certify that:


|   |                                                                               
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-K/A of BBCN Bancorp, Inc.; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.










|                      |                       
|--------------------- | ----------------------
|Dated: April 28, 2016 | /s/ Douglas J. Goddard

_______________________________


Douglas J. Goddard


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.57




ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION

OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Assignment”), effective the 20th
day of June 2008, is made by and between MiMedx, Inc, a Florida corporation (“Assignor”), and
MiMedx Group, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Assignee”).



WHEREAS, Assignor, as the “Company” under that certain employment agreement by and between
Assignor and Steve Gorlin (as “Executive”), entered into that certain employment agreement dated
March 1, 2007 (the “Employment Agreement); and



WHEREAS, due to certain recent corporate transactions, including Assignor’s merger with
Assignee, a public company, the parties believe it is in their best interests to assign the
Employment Agreement to Assignee, so that Executive will become employed by Assignee for purposes
of completing the terms of the Employment Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Assignor and Assignee agree as follows:



1. Assignment. Assignor hereby assigns and delivers all of its rights, duties and
obligations under the Employment Agreement to Assignee effective on the date and year first written
above.



2. Assumption of Duties. Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to pay, discharge, or
perform, as appropriate, all of Assignor’s obligations under the Employment Agreement arising after
the date hereof. If any of those obligations was discovered after the date hereof, but were, in
actuality, incurred prior to the date hereof, those obligations shall be paid, discharged or
performed, as appropriate, by Assignor.



[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]




 


 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment as of the date and year written
below.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ASSIGNOR:




MIMEDX, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  John C. Thomas, Jr.
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John C. Thomas, Jr. 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Secretary 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ASSIGNEE:




MIMEDX GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  John C. Thomas, Jr.
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John C. Thomas, Jr. 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Secretary 	 
	 




STEVE GORLIN (“Executive” under the Employment Agreement) joins herein to indicate his consent to
the assignment and assumption of the Employment Agreement, agrees to look solely to Assignee for
performance of all obligations of Assignor arising under the Employment Agreement after the date of
this Assignment, agrees that the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect, and agrees
to continue to be fully bound by its terms.



	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Steve Gorlin	 	 
	 	 	 
	STEVE GORLIN	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	6/20/08
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 99 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 99

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 14, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 428) to survey the gradient boundary along 
the Red River in the States of Oklahoma and Texas, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 2  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in 
the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) disapproving the rule submitted by 
the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation 
applicants. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 60761.

#### Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S. A. *v.*United States,

protest 303517-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 60767.

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 294993-K New) York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Document

Exhibit 10.8.6

AMENDMENT SIX
TO
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN


The Coca-Cola Company Supplemental Pension Plan is amended as follows, effective as provided herein:


1.Effective December 9, 2020, the definition of “Separation from Service” is amended as follows:
"“Separation from Service” shall mean that employment with an Employer terminates such that it is reasonably anticipated that no further services will be performed for the Employer or any member of the Company’s Controlled Group, as defined by Section 414 of the Code. Separation from Service shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Section 409A of the Code and the regulations thereunder.”


    
                THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BENEFITS COMMITTEE




            
                                                
                By: Silvina Kippke


                Date:  December 9, 2020
# C_2018013EN.01001602.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — HD v Parliament

(Case T-652/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Prohibition of overlapping allowances of the same type - Claim for recovery of undue payments - Protection of personal data - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 013/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HD (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016, HD v Parliament (F-136/15, EU:F:2016:169), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

HD

Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders HD to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HD to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

1

---