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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE ALLEN BUTLER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1049 EJG GGH P

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On April 14, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a

request for a certificate of appealability. On April 11, 2005, petitioner filed a notice of appeal

which the court construed as containing a request for a certificate of appealability. On April 27,

2005, the court issued a certificate of appealabilty.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s April 14, 2005, motion

for an extension of time to file his request a certificate of appealability is denied as unnecessary. 

DATED: 5/3/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

but1049.den

Case 2:04-cv-01049-EJG-GGH Document 43 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 10.38
 IRWIN COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION  SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT
  RECITALS




---



##### 



AGREEMENT
 1. DEFINITIONS
 1.1. In this Agreement (the Agreement):
           -2-




---



##### 



2. ANTI-DILUTION PROVISIONS
 2.1. Adjustment Events.
       3. RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER
 3.1. Transfers Restricted.
  3.2. No Encumbrance.
  -3-




---



##### 



3.3. Obligation of Transferee.
  3.4. Effect of Non-Permitted Transfers.
  3.5. Legend on Share Certificates.
   4. CALL RIGHT; RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
 4.1. ICF and IUBT Call Right.
  -4-




---



##### 



4.2. Right of First Refusal.
         -5-




---



##### 



th
  4.3. Purchase Price.
 The Wall Street Journal
    -6-




---



##### 



Exhibit A provided however
   -7-




---



##### 



4.4. Option Closing.
 th th
  4.5. Request for Determination of Fair Market Value.
  -8-




---



##### 



5. Exit Provisions.
 5.1. Exit Provisions.
          -9-




---



##### 



6. CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
      -10-




---



##### 



7. Miscellaneous
 7.1. Further Assurances; Other Agreements; Entire Agreement.
   7.2. Notices.
   
  
     -11-




---



##### 



7.3. Amendments.
  7.4. Governing Law.
  7.5. Successors and Assigns.
  7.6. No Waiver.
  7.7. Severability.
  -12-




---



##### 



7.8. Section Headings.
  7.9. Counterparts.
  7.10. Time is of the Essence.
  7.11. Alternative Dispute Resolution.
 (a) Negotiation
 (b) Mediation
 (c) Arbitration provided however
 -13-




---



##### 



[signature page follows]
 -14-




---



##### 



IRWIN COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION
    
    IRWIN UNION BANK AND TRUST COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/ Thomas D. Washburn
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Gregory F. EhlingerThomas D. Washburn, Chairman
    
    
    
    Gregory F. Ehlinger, Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
 /s/ JOSEPH LALEGGIA
    
    /s/ LUIGI SPIZZIRRIAddress:
    
    
    
    Address:/s/ MARK CANNON
    
    /s/ ROBERT MURPHYAddress:
    
    
    
    Address:/s/ ROBERT MORMINA
    
    /s/ JOHN RINALDIAddress:
    
    
    
    Address:
 -15-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
            EXTRACTED FROM SERVICEMASTER'S QUARTERLY REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS
            FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
            ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
     
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001052045                  
<NAME>                          THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000               
       
<S>                             <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                          56,708            54,705      
<SECURITIES>                    58,808            55,800              
<RECEIVABLES>                   432,917           357,896               
<ALLOWANCES>                    33,377            33,750               
<INVENTORY>                     49,950            49,449               
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                702,200           580,145               
<PP&E>                          427,994           351,770               
<DEPRECIATION>                  226,048           195,965               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,883,464         2,322,212             
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           674,554           509,558               
<BONDS>                         1,177,334          1,221,386             
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0                 0              
<PREFERRED>                     0                 0              
<COMMON>                        2,969             0              
<OTHER-SE>                      899,018           434,049        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,883,464         2,322,212      
<SALES>                         0                 0              
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,499,508         2,918,044      
<CGS>                           0                 0              
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,702,538         2,243,344               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                499,554           419,648               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0                 0               
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              71,044            53,758              
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 238,288           205,507              
<INCOME-TAX>                    96,262            83,025              
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             142,026           122,482               
<DISCONTINUED>                  0                 0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0                 0               
<CHANGES>                       0                 0               
<NET-INCOME>                    142,026           122,482             
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .49               .42               
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .48               .41               
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Year Ended November 30,
                                      1991          1991          1993          1994          1995
<S>                            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>        
Net income for year            $27,921,275   $29,094,668   $29,887,693   $31,420,899   $33,216,662
                               ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
Weighted average common
 shares outstanding             26,528,137    25,988,362    25,081,056    24,218,145    23,070,525
Dilutive common stock
 equivalents:
 Stock options, based on
 treasury stock method using
 average market price               59,431        47,959        22,862        43,020       147,143
                               -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------

Total common and common
 equivalent shares included
 in computation of primary
 and fully-diluted earnings
 per share:                     26,587,568    26,036,321    25,103,918    24,261,165    23,217,668
                               ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
Earnings per share             $      1.05   $      1.12   $      1.19   $      1.30   $      1.43
                               ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>

(A) Fully-diluted earnings per share is not presented on face of statement of
    income since incremental dilution is less than 3%.

Prior year amounts have been restated to reflect the three-for-one stock split
    approved by the Board Directors on March 12, 1991.
Exhibit 99.4

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 American Banknote
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick J. Gentile, Senior Vice President Finance
and 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ Patrick J. Gentile
Patrick J. Gentile
Senior Vice President Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2003
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANNE NELSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1103 DFL KJM PS

vs.

PLACER COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This action was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). On

April 28, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. No opposition to the motion

for summary judgment has been filed. 

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be

filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that “[n]o party

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to

the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In addition, Local Rule 78-230(j) provides

that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in

sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may

be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.”

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 160 Filed 05/19/06 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

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of May 31, 2006 is vacated. Hearing on defendants’ motion

for summary judgment is continued to June 28, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion for summary judgment no

later than June 7, 2006. Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed as a

statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 18, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

nelson2.nop

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 160 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2017144EN.01004401.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/44

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB

(Case T-22/16) (1)

1

((Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Supervision of credit institutions - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering - Corrective measures - No invitation to act - Lack of precision in the application - Act not open to challenge - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2017/C 144/60)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon) (represented by: M. Ribeiro, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Karpf, P. Ferreira Jorge and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, an application based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the ECB illegally failed to take action against Portuguese credit institutions within the context of the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, secondly, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the act by which the ECB returned to the applicants the invitation to act which they had sent to it, and, thirdly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants as a result of that failure to act.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Comprojecto — Projectos e Construções, Lda, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Comprojecto — Projectos e Construções, Lda, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

v. : CRIMINAL NO.: 05-586

PAMELA SLAUGHTER :

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Pamela Slaughter, Defendant above-named, hereby appeals to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the judgment of sentence entered

on March 23, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

 

LEIGH M. SKIPPER 

Supervisory Assistant Federal Defender

Case 2:05-cr-00586-GEKP Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Leigh M. Skipper, Supervisory Assistant Federal Defender, Defender Association of

Philadelphia, Federal Court Division, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Notice of

Appeal, by electronic notification and/or hand delivery upon Terri A. Marinari, Assistant United

States Attorney, to her office located at 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19106.

 

LEIGH M. SKIPPER

Supervisory Assistant Federal Defender

DATED: March 31, 2006

Case 2:05-cr-00586-GEKP Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8613)

Entry No. 807666.

#### American Express Company *v.*United States

(Decided June 27, 1956)

*Bharretts, P'aley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or the price of the wool bunting covered by the appeal to reappraisement above mentioned, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of England, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for domestic consumption including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise, in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was 199 shillings per piece net packed f. o. b. Liverpool for the white bunting and 200 shillings 6 pence per piece net packed f. o. b. Liverpool for the colored bunting, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal to re-appraisement be submitted upon this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe.foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of tbe Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe wool bunting bere involved, and that sucb values were 199 shillings per piece net packed f. o. b. Liverpool for tbe white bunting and 200 shillings, 6 pence, per piece net packed f. o. b. Liverpool for tbe colored bunting.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                              
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 4, 2004 |  | /S/ GEORGE F. HORNER III                                     
|                       |  | George F. Horner III                                         
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                        
|                       | 
|Date: November 4, 2004 |  | /S/ DOV A. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.                                   
|                       |  | Dov A. Goldstein, M.D.                                       
|                       |  | Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
```

[108th Congress Public Law 71]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ071.108]

[[Page 117 STAT. 887]]

Public Law 108-71
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the ``Garner E. 
 Shriver Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 14, 2003 -  [H.R. 1761]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 
East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Garner E. Shriver Post Office 
Building''.

    Approved August 14, 2003.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1761:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):
            July 8, considered and passed House.
            July 31, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6387

KENNETH SIDBERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEVE BAILEY, Superintendent of Foothills Correctional Center; MACK JARVIS, Secretary of

the North Carolina Department of Correction,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-243-5-F3)

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Sidberry, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Sidberry seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). 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. Sidberry v. Bailey, No. CA-97-243-5-F3

(E.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 1998). We also deny Sidberry’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
#### David MICHAUD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Michael MCQUADE, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 00-2477.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

June 14, 2001.

*18David Michaud, on brief, pro se.

Sean M. Perrin and Devine, Millimet & Branch, on brief, for appellees.

Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant, David Michaud, objects to the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against two police officers and their municipal employer. After careful review of the record, in particular the parties’ summary judgment submissions, we conclude that his claims of error lack merit. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its Order dated October 31, 2000. We make only the following additional comment.

We see no need to determine whether the district court erroneously declined to consider certain claims on the ground that they had been dismissed pursuant to a prior order by a magistrate judge. As the record establishes, summary judgment on these claims in favor of defendants would have been warranted, in any event. There was no factual basis for the claim that defendants had violated Michaud’s First Amendment rights when his then estranged wife, Linda Michaud, who was the custodial parent, sent him away from her father’s residence without letting him visit his children on June 13,1996. In an affidavit, Michaud informed the district court that his visitation hours on the day in question concluded at 5 p.m., and defendants’ affidavits establish that he arrived at his father-in-law’s house at approximately 5:20 p.m. That is, the undisputed facts establish that Michaud had no right to visit with his children at the time in question.

In addition, there was no factual basis for the claim that defendants made false reports to an assistant state attorney general, thereby obtaining, without probable cause, his authorization to wiretap Michaud’s telephone conversation with his wife on June 13, 1996. During discovery, defendants gave sworn responses to Michaud’s interrogatories, stating unequivocally that they had never knowingly made false reports to the attorney general’s office. In responding to defendants’ interrogatories, Michaud declined to even identify the defendants’ alleged falsehoods. Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants’ favor was warranted.

*Affirmed.*