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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6609

DEAN L. PRUE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JAMES SMITH, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00665-CCB)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dean L. Prue, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Everett Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dean L. Prue, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prue 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4978 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4978

To prohibit certain businesses and persons from purchasing real estate 
 adjacent to covered Federal land in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2024

   Ms. Lummis (for herself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Crapo) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit certain businesses and persons from purchasing real estate 
 adjacent to covered Federal land in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No American Land for Communist China 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ADJACENT TO 
              COVERED FEDERAL LAND IN THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONALS OF 
              THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered federal land.--The term ``covered Federal 
        land'' means--
                    (A) land owned by the United States that is under 
                the jurisdiction of--
                            (i) the Secretary of the Interior;
                            (ii) the Secretary of Defense; or
                            (iii) the Secretary of Agriculture, with 
                        respect to land managed by the Forest Service; 
                        or
                    (B) land that is Indian country (as defined in 
                section 1151 of title 18, United States Code).
            (2) United states.--The term ``United States'' means the 
        several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
        American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and any 
        other territory or possession of the United States.
    (b) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
President shall take such actions as may be necessary to prohibit the 
purchase of real estate located adjacent to covered Federal land in the 
United States by--
            (1) any agent of the Government of the People's Republic of 
        China; or
            (2) any business with respect to which the Government of 
        the People's Republic of China, directly or indirectly through 
        any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or 
        otherwise, owns 25 percent or more of the equity interests of 
        the business.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007022EN.01000301.xml

| 31.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/3 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------ |

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Marina Mutual Insurance Association Limited High 5746 of 2006

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(2007/C 22/03)

| Insurance undertaking | Marina Mutual Insurance Association Limited Three Quays, Tower Hill, London EC3R 6DS United Kingdom | Marina Mutual Insurance Association Limited | Three Quays, Tower Hill, London EC3R 6DS | United Kingdom |
| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- |
| Marina Mutual Insurance Association Limited | | | | |
| Three Quays, Tower Hill, London EC3R 6DS | | | | |
| United Kingdom | | | | |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | On 19 July 2006, pursuant to Section 125 of the Insolvency Act 1986, a compulsory Winding-up Order was made against Marina Mutual Insurance Association Limited and pursuant to Section 136 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the Official Receiver was appointed Liquidator. | | | |
| Competent authorities | Financial Services Authority 25 The North Colonnade Canary Wharf, London, E145HS United Kingdom | Financial Services Authority | 25 The North Colonnade | Canary Wharf, London, E145HS |
| Financial Services Authority | | | | |
| 25 The North Colonnade | | | | |
| Canary Wharf, London, E145HS | | | | |
| United Kingdom | | | | |
| Supervisory authority | The Financial Services Authority 25 The North Colonnade Canary Wharf, London E145HS United Kingdom | The Financial Services Authority | 25 The North Colonnade | Canary Wharf, London E145HS |
| The Financial Services Authority | | | | |
| 25 The North Colonnade | | | | |
| Canary Wharf, London E145HS | | | | |
| United Kingdom | | | | |
| Liquidator appointed | The Official Receiver Public Interest Unit 21 Bloomsbury Street London WC1B 3SS United Kingdom e-mail; piu.or@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk | The Official Receiver | Public Interest Unit | 21 Bloomsbury Street |
| The Official Receiver | | | | |
| Public Interest Unit | | | | |
| 21 Bloomsbury Street | | | | |
| London WC1B 3SS | | | | |
| United Kingdom | | | | |
| Applicable law | Royaume-Uni
The Insolvency Act 1986
The Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2004 | | | |

---
#### Jessie M. Nelson, by her husband and next friend, C. A. Nelson, and her Guardian *ad litem,*H. E. Merryday, and C. A. Nelson, her husband, v. James B. Pitcher, Jr.

180 So. 22.

Division A.

Opinion Filed April 1, 1938.

*J. P. Lamb,*for Appellants;

*Thos. B. Dotvda,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appeal brings for review decree of foreclosure of mortgage.

The mortgagor was a *feme sole*at the time of the execu*872tion of the notes and mortgage securing the same. She afterwards married C. A. Nelson.

The defense was in effect that the mortgagor was of such unsound mind at the time of the execution of the notes and mortgage as to render her incompetent to contract and be contracted with.

The issue of mental incapacity was presented by the pleadings and voluminous testimony was taken.

The Chancellor found that the mortgagor was mentally competent to contract at the time of the execution and delivery of the notes and mortgage and that the notes were given for a valuable consideration.

We find that the record discloses substantial evidence to support the findings and the decree and we must decline to disturb the same. See Pierce v. Brand Properties, Inc., and authorities there cited. Opinion filed January 5, 1938, and reported 178 Sou. 168.

The decree is affirmed.

So ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                  --------------------------------------------

         In connection with this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Genius
Products, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002, I, Klaus
Moeller, Interim Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       This Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 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 this Form 10-KSB for the period
                  ended December 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the Company.

Date:    April 3, 2003

                                          By:   /s/ Klaus Moeller
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                Klaus Moeller
                                                Interim Chief Financial Officer
No. 41798.

#### Petition 5741-R of Otto A. C. Hagen Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

Nothing was found in the record to indicate any intention to defraud the Government. The inclusion of the cost of the drums in the nondurable charges deducted on entry may have been the result of carelessness, but mere carelessness does not justify the conclusion that there was an intent to defraud. The petition was therefore granted.
#### LOSIE *v.*LOSIE.

1. Appeal and Error — Perfected Appeal — Jurisdiction.

When an appeal from a decree has been perfected the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the case and the trial court does not then have jurisdiction to vacate the decree (Court Rule No. 56 [1945J).

2. Same — Rehearing—Jurisdiction—Perfected Appeal.

Rule that case might be reheard by trial court after appeal to Supreme Court had been perfected does not apply where motion to vacate was filed after four months after entry of decree (Court Rule No. 56 [1945]).

References for Points in IIeadnotes

[1] 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, § 528.

[1,2] 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, § 529.

Appeal from Wayne; Richter (Theodore J.), J.

Submitted March 23, 1948.

(Calendar No. 43,959.)

Decided May 18, 1948.

Divorce proceedings by Earl J. Losie against Ellen M. Losie. On motion to vacate decree. Decree vacated. Plaintiff reviews by appeal in nature of mandamus.

Reversed.

*Davis S Perlongo,*for plaintiff.

*Buckingham, Biggins & Rehn,*for defendant.

Dethmers, J.

By decree entered Juno 14, 1946, plaintiff was granted a divorce. On February 10, 1947, defendant petitioned for, and on July 18, 1947, *113the court ordered, a modifícátion of the decree. On July 28, 1947, defendant filed a motion to vacate the decree. On August 6, 1947, plaintiff perfected an appeal, now pending, from the order modifying the decree. On October 30, 1947, the court entered an order vacating the decree, from which this appeal is taken;

Court Rule No. 56 (1945) provides:

“Section 1. Every appeal to the Supreme Court shall be taken by filing a claim of appeal with the court, tribunal or officer whose action is to be reviewed, and paying the fee required by law for taking appeal. The Supreme Court shall thereupon have jurisdiction of the case.”

When the appeal from the order modifying the decree had been perfected this Court had jurisdiction of the case and the trial court was without jurisdiction to vacate the decree. *City of Grand Rapids*v. *Coit,*151 Mich. 109; *Hughes*v. *Wayne Circuit Judge,*239 Mich. 110; *Scott*v. *Scott,*255 Mich. 663; *Daugherty*v. *Reading,*266 Mich. 514; *Goldblum*v. *United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Ford, Local No. 50,*319 Mich. 30. The motion to vacate having been filed more than four months after decree’s entry, *Domboorajian*v. *Domboorajian,*235 Mich. 668, is inapplicable.

The ordering vacating the decree of divorce is reversed, with costs to plaintiff.

Bushnell, C. J., and Sharpe, Boyles, Reid, North, Butzel, and Carr, JJ., concurred.
```

[112th Congress Public Law 255]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 2411]]

Public Law 112-255
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
        6239 Savannah Highway in Ravenel, South Carolina, as the 
 ``Representative Curtis B. Inabinett, Sr. Post Office''. <<NOTE: Jan. 
                       10, 2013 -  [H.R. 6379]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPRESENTATIVE CURTIS B. INABINETT, SR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6239 Savannah Highway in Ravenel, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Representative Curtis B. Inabinett, Sr. 
Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Representative Curtis B. Inabinett, Sr. Post Office''.

    Approved January 10, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6379:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Dec. 19, 20, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 27, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 10.26 EmploymentAgreement-L Potts2014




Exhibit  10.26






April 30, 2014


Larry Potts
Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer & Director Corporate Security
Scientific Games Corporation
750 Lexington Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, New York


Dear Larry:


With regard to your Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2006 (executed August 2, 2006), and as amended by a letter agreement dated October 2, 2008, an amendment to the Employment Agreement dated as of December 30, 2008, and a letter agreement dated September 28, 2011 (as so amended, the “Agreement”), we are pleased to confirm the following changes to the Agreement.
With regard to Section 2 of the Agreement, the term will be extended from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015. The renewal terms contained in Section 2 remain intact.


With regard to Section 4(a) of the Agreement, effective January 1, 2014, your base salary is five-hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per annum.


If these changes are agreeable, please sign an acknowledgement copy and return to me.




Scientific Games Corporation




By: /s/ Peter A. Mani


Name: Peter A. Mani


Title: Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer




Acknowledged this 5th day of May, 2014




/s/ Larry Potts
Larry Potts
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 4, 2021

NO. 03-19-00176-CR

Dustin Ray Randig, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Form 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarterended September 30, 2010, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to thebest of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)         such Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         the information contained insuch Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofFrederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
| /s/  Martin S. Lapera                  |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Martin  S. Lapera                      |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
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

THOMAS JOESPH DUNPHY, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV 04-2623 DFL KJM P

vs.

WARDEN, DAVID L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation

of constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file an answer.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02623-DFL -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Respondents are directed to file an answer within sixty days from the date of

this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondents shall include with the

answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus on Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney

General.

DATED: May 19, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

dunp2623.100 

Case 2:04-cv-02623-DFL -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a)
AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MedAssets, Inc.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
   /s/ L. Neil HunnL. Neil HunnSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of Oxford Square Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Jonathan H. CohenName: Jonathan H. CohenDate: April28, 2022