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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6836

JOHN WILLIAM MUNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HARLEY G. LAPPIN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-97-380-5-HC-BO)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John William Munson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing, without prejudice, his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997). Our review of the record and the district

court's order discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Munson v.

Lappin, No. CA-97-380-5-HC-BO (E.D.N.C. May 20, 1997). 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. 46168.

#### Protests 31235-K of N. Y. Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the tape measures are chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. Following Abstract 43372 the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as household utensils was therefore sustained. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the dime savings banks in question are in chief value of metal and similar to those the subject of Abstract 42749 the claim as hollow ware at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
<PAGE>


                                     EXHIBIT
                                     ITEM 23

Consent Of Hutchinson and Bloodgood LLP

To the Board of Directors
Centennial First Financial Services
Redlands, California


We hereby consent to the use in the 10-KSB/A for Centennial First Financial
Services of our report dated January 25, 2001 relating to the financial
statements of Centennial First Financial Services and Subsidiary for the years
ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, and to the reference to our Firm under
the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statement.

                                     /s/ Hutchinson and Bloodgood LLP


Glendale, California
April 30, 2001





                                       9
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

27

28

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194

Assistant U. S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2760

Attorneys for Petitioners

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and R.O. ALEX ALARCON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

ALEX ALARCON, Revenue Officer,

Internal Revenue Service,

Petitioners,

v.

JONATHAN A. HUNT,

Respondent.

2:04-MC-0269-DFL-GGH

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

CIVIL CONTEMPT OF ORDER

FILED NOVEMBER 29, 2004

Taxpayer: JONATHAN A. HUNT

Date: July 28, 2005

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 24 (8th Fl., GGH)

Upon the Verified Petition Re: Civil Contempt by McGREGOR SCOTT, United States

Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and the Exhibit attached thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED that respondent, JONATHAN A. HUNT, appear before United States

Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows, in Courtroom 24 on the 8th floor of the United States

Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, on July 28, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., and that

respondent show cause as follows:

1. Why the respondent, JONATHAN A. HUNT, should not be held in civil contempt

of this Court for his failure to comply with the Order filed in this action on November 29,

2004, including producing the testimony and materials mandated by that Order; and

2. Why the respondent should not be incarcerated and ordered to pay a daily fine until

he complies with the Order and be subjected to compensatory fines for the resources

Case 2:04-mc-00269-DFL-GGH Document 10 Filed 07/06/05 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

27

28

expanded in obtaining his compliance.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 7 calendar days after the filing of this Order,

the respondent shall file and serve a written response to the Verified Petition Re Civil:

Contempt, supported by appropriate affidavits. Only those issues brought into controversy by

the responsive papers and supported by affidavit will be considered at the hearing on this

Order, and any uncontested allegation in the Verified Petition Re: Civil Contempt will be

considered admitted.

Respondent is hereby notified that a failure to comply with this Order will subject

respondent to possible further sanctions for contempt of Court.

The Clerk shall forward copies of this Order to the Magistrate Judge, the respondent

and the United States Attorney. 

It is SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/5/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

hunt269.ord06

Case 2:04-mc-00269-DFL-GGH Document 10 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10461)

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1899-H; 2670-H.

(Decided February 27, 1963)

*Richard Van Bteeriburgh*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto, consists of birch plywood, exported from Finland in the year 1954.

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed that the merchandise and issues involved in the said appeals are the same in all material respects as those in the case of *United States*v. *Plywood & Door Manufacturers*Corporation, 46 Cust. Ct. 797, A.R.D. 133, and that the record in the said case may be incorporated as part of the record herein.

The appeals have been submitted for decision upon written stipulation, on the 'basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the birch plywood involved and that such values were those set forth in column “4” of said schedule, packed, less the prorated amounts of the nondutiable charges set forth directly after the description of the merchandise in each said reappraisement case, set forth in schedule “A”.

The appeals for reappraisement have been limited to the birch plywood referred to above. As to all other merchandise, the values found by the appraiser are held to be the correct values of the merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,563] 

      ( print page 11906)    
                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on January 10, 2007, applicable to workers of General Chemical Performance Products, Gibbstown, New Jersey. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3424).                 

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of sodium nitrite. 

New information shows that in July 2006, General Chemical Performance Products purchased Repauno Products LLC. Workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Repauno Products LLC. 

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter. 

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of General Chemical Performance Products who were adversely affected by increased imports. 

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,563 is hereby issued as follows: 

“All workers of General Chemical Performance Products, Repauno Products LLC, Gibbstown, New Jersey, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 6, 2005, through January 10, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”

Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of March 2007. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-4577 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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

 

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

John C. Montue,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2663 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

Teresa A. Schwartz, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner is a state prisoner claiming parole proceedings

in July of 1997 violated his constitutional right to due process.

June 15, 2005, respondent moved to dismiss because the

petition is successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and cannot be

filed without prior authorization of the court of appeals. 

Petitioner filed a prior habeas petition in this court based on

the same factual predicate, Montue v. Dept. of Corrections, Civ.

S 98-1580 LKK JFM, and the court entered judgment for respondent

March 16, 2001.

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 12 Filed 11/29/05 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

Petitioner opposed dismissal June 24, 2005. He relies on

the Ninth Circuit order number 04-75180, filed November 22, 2004,

which denied petitioner’s application to file a second or

successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, yet directed

petitioner to proceed by filing a habeas petition in district

court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Exhibit A to opposition.

Respondent did not reply to petitioner’s opposition.

Governing case law favors respondent, see White v. Lambert,

370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004), Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061

(9th Cir. 2004), but dismissal without considering the effect of

the Ninth Circuit’s order number 04-75180 would be improvident.

Accordingly, respondent’s June 15, 2005, motion to dismiss

is denied without prejudice. Respondent shall further respond to

the petition within 30 days. The response may take the form of a

motion to dismiss based on § 2244(d) (addressing order number 04-

75180), time-bar, res judicata or any other ground.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 12 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felipe Mejia, Also Known as Phillipe Mejia, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 157]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered January 20, 1993, convicting *183defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts each of rape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and one count of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years on the rape convictions, 9 to 18 years on the first degree robbery and burglary convictions, and 6 to 12 years on the second degree robbery conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly precluded his expert from giving an opinion about tests which were not performed by the prosecution experts was not preserved. Since defendant made ho offer of proof, he failed to make known his position with respect to the court’s ruling at a time when it could have been corrected *(People v George,*67 NY2d 817, 819). Moreover, the stricken portion of the expert’s answer was not responsive to the question asked, and defendant’s present claim that these unnamed tests would have been relevant to the issue of identification which in this case involved three perpetrators is speculative at best *(see, People v Smith,*204 AD2d 140, *lv denied*84 NY2d 872).

Defendant’s claims that the People’s lay witnesses were improperly permitted to give a "psychiatric evaluation” of the complainant’s apparent emotional state after the attack upon her, and that their descriptions of her crying and sobbing were prejudicial to him, were not preserved by the general objections registered thereto *(People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879). Moreover, since defendant placed in issue whether any rape occurred, the complainant’s prompt outcry and descriptions of her emotional state soon after the attack became relevant to material issues in the case *{People v Terrence,*205 AD2d 301, *lv denied*84 NY2d 873). Any issue raised by the People’s introduction of portions of the complainant’s Grand Jury testimony was not preserved by objection, and in any event its introduction was proper rebuttal to defendant’s implication on cross-examination, based on other portions of the complainant’s Grand Jury testimony, that the complainant’s trial testimony was a recent fabrication *(People v Richards,*184 AD2d 222, *lv denied*80 NY2d 1029).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.
Exhibit 10.7.A




EXHIBIT 10.7.A




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
ALIMERA SCIENCES, INC.
2010 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




Alimera Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan effective April 21, 2010 (the “Plan”).  Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan. Pursuant to the authority reserved to the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company under Section 14(a) of the Plan, the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows.  


Section 15(g) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(g)    “Eligible Employee” means any employee of a Participating Company whose customary employment is for more than five months per calendar year and for more than 20 hours per week.


The foregoing notwithstanding, an individual shall not be considered an Eligible Employee if his or her participation in the Plan is prohibited by the law of any country that has jurisdiction over him or her or if he or she is subject to a collective bargaining agreement that does not provide for participation in the Plan.”


Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.


Adopted by the Company’s Board of Directors:    December 18, 2014
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 19, 2014

t0916

Order 

Clerk

September 19, 2014

148907

148909 & (88)

AROMA WINES AND EQUIPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff/

Counter-Defendant-Appellant,

v SC: 148907

COA: 311145 

Kent CC: 09-011149-CK

COLUMBIAN DISTRIBUTION SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant/

Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

AROMA WINES AND EQUIPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 148909

COA: 311145

Kent CC: 09-011149-CK

COLUMBIAN DISTRIBUTION SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff- Appellant, Cross-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 17, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as 

cross-appellant are considered. The applications for leave to appeal are GRANTED, 

limited to the issue of the proper interpretation of “converting property to the other 

person’s own use,” as used in MCL 600.2919a. The application for leave to appeal as 

cross-appellant remains pending.

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case 

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Motions for permission 

to file briefs amicus curiae should be filed in Docket No. 148907 only.
May 3, 1960

No. 64142.

Suit 4978.

#### United States *v.*Border Brokerage Co. et al.

C.D. 2020 reversed January 19, 1960. C.A.D. 732.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

|                                                 |   |                                   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| /s/                Frank Erhartic, Jr.               |   | /s/                Daniel Judd         |
| Frank                Erhartic, Jr.                   |   | Daniel                Judd             |
| Chief                Executive Officer and President |   | Chief                Financial Officer |
| April 2, 2007                                        |   | April 2, 2007                          |

----
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to the

Region’s Resource Potential, is available at:

http://www.energyatlas.org/
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

MICHELLE M., DONALD M., SR, and 

DONALD M., JR., by and through 

his guardian ad litem, DONALD M., SR.,

Plaintiffs, CIV S-04-2411 MCE PAN 

vs.

DUNSMUIR JOINT UNION 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pursuant to the order filed March 15, 2006, a copy of the Davis report was

submitted for in camera review. The report consists of a binder containing about three inches of

paper broken up into fifty tabbed items. The court read the report. The only reference to this

action is a communication from the plaintiffs herein. Nothing else in the report relates to this

case and nothing is likely to lead to the discovery of evidence which would be admissible in this

case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ January 27, 2006 motion to

compel production of documents is denied with respect to the Davis report. 

DATED: April 25, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02411-MCE -EFB Document 73 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 1
600

L A K E M I C H I G A N

Cedarburg

Thiensville

Port

Washington

West

Cedarburg

OE E

Port

Washington

East

96

47

35 4

34

47'

48

87°

22'

94

000 31 33

47

37

47

DP

000m

4

4

47

48

30"

47'

470

000m

47

4

30"

490

52' 45'

89

33

540

47

36

47

48

4 000m

91

96

95

89

43°

30"

560 4

91

43°

000

DP

DP

92

15'

02

00

87°

4

4

98

47

47

37

38

47

17'

4

22'30"

99

47

32 36

47

E

47

93

47

DN

2

DN

30

15'

N

17'

000

52'

4

4

99

000

87°

97

02

95

4 30" 30"

20'

90

FEET

01

50' 4

4

47

92

90

000m

4 39

93

43°

94

47

FEET

N

30"

98

32 34

35

FEET 50' E

47

4

47

47

43°

00

45'

4

20'

47

48

87°

30"

01

30 31 FEET 38

2

48

4

4

47

48

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WISCONSIN

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

CEDARBURG OE E, WI

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

CEDARBURG OE E QUADRANGLE

WISCONSIN

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 16T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Wisconsin Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1999

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 33 ́

10 MILS

3° 36 ́

64 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

16T

DN

DP 48 00

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as amended (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:      March   9, 2011 | /s/   Michael J. Ricketts                           |
|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |                                                |
|                                                     | Michael   J. Ricketts                               |
|                                                     | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----