alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6758** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GODWIN ASIFO , Defendant

- Appellant
.

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

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00032

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Godwin Asifo, Appellant Pro Se. Jack Hanly, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Godwin Asifo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denyi ng relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion.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) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district cou rt’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 demons trate 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 Asifo has not ma de the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Amendment to the Rights Agreement



 Exhibit 4.1 

AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 

Amendment to Rights Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of October, 31, 2016, between Cryo-Cell International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and Continental Stock and Transfer Trust (the “Rights Agent”). 
 Whereas, the
Company entered into that certain Rights Agreement with the Rights Agent, dated as of December 5, 2014 (the “Rights Agreement”); 

Whereas, the Company desires to terminate the Rights Agreement effective October 31, 2016; 

Whereas, Section 27 of the Rights Agreement provides that the Rights Agreement can be amended as the Company may deem necessary or
desirable before such time as any Person becomes an Acquiring Person thereunder; 
 Whereas, as of the time immediately prior to this
Amendment, no Person has become an Acquiring Person under the Rights Agreement; and 
 Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Company has
determined that it is desirable and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Rights Agreement and has directed that the Rights Agreement be amended as provided herein pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement.

 Accordingly, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

Section 1. The definition of “Final Expiration Date” in Section 1 of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended and restated
to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “Final Expiration Date” shall mean October 31, 2016. 

Section 2. This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Delaware and for all purposes shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such State applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such State (without regard to conflicts of law principles of such State). 

Section 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to
be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. 
 In witness whereof, the parties
hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and their respective corporate seals to be hereunder affixed and attested, all as of the day and year first above written. 

 

							
	Attest:	 		 	CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
				
	 /s/ Oscar Vergara
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ David Portnoy










									
				
	Attest:	 		 		 	CONTINENTAL STOCK AND
				
		 		 		 	TRANSFER, INC.
		 		 		 	as Rights Agent
				
	 /s/ Issac Kagan
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin Jennings
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, the Chief Financial Officer, of Witness Systems, Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of the registrant;

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
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



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:



|Dated: May 21, 2004 |  |     |                                                            
|------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | BY: | /s/WILLIAM F. EVANSWilliam F. Evans Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
No. 51031.

#### Protests 54510-K, etc., of London Weatherproofs, Inc., et al. (New York).

*261Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
- 492 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S 302 N ebraska R eport STATE v . SAVAGE Cite as 302 Neb. 492



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### . C ourt n ey 

### J. S avage 

### , appella ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed March 15, 2019. No. S-17-1166.

suppleme n tal opi n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: S us 

### I

. S tro n g 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modi

fied. Motion for rehearing overrul Darik J. Von Loh, of Hernandez Frantz, Von Loh, appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller


### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c 

### P

apik 

### , and F reude n berg 

### ,

P er 

### C uriam 

### This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Courtney J. Savage, concerning our opinion in State v. Savage , 301 Neb. 873, 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows: In the subsection “(a) Authentication,” after the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph, we insert the following language: As for Savage’s contention that the State did not properly authenticate messages sent to him by others, we again disagree. The State was required only to introduce testi

mony sufficient to establish that the evidence was what Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 03/29/2019 09:06 AM CDT- 493 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S 302 N ebraska R eport STATE v . SAVAGE Cite as 302 Neb. 492


### the State claimed it to be. The State did not claim that messages sent by others were anything more than mes

sages sent to Savage’s cell phone. See State v. Elseman , 287 Neb. 134, 841 N.W.2d 225 (2014). Savage , 301 Neb. at 885, 920 N.W.2d at 703. In subsection “(b) Hearsay,” following the second to the last paragraph, we insert the following paragraph: We also reject Savage’s argument that text messages sent to his cell phone by unidentified individuals contained inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the mat

ter asserted.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 2016). Messages sent to Savage’s cell phone were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. They were offered to prove that the statements were made. Savage , 301 Neb. at 887, 920 N.W.2d at 704. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modif 

### M otio n for reheari n g overru
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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, James R. Latimer, III, Chief Executive Officer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 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/   James R. Latimer, III |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                                     |                             |
|                                                     | James   R. Latimer, III     |
|                                                     | Chief   Executive Officer        |

 

----
**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**

|  | · | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended                September 30, 2006, as amended, as filed with the Securities and                Exchange                Commission on the date hereof (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 result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/                Samuel F. Occhipinti                     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   | Samuel                F. Occhipinti                         |
|   |   | Chief                Financial Officer                      |
|   |   | (principal                financial and accounting officer) |
|   |   | April                20, 2007                               |

----
EX-10.42



 Exhibit 10.42 

 
 



 
 Hansen Medical, Inc. 
 800 East Middlefield Road 
 Mountain View, CA 94043 

October 28, 2014 
 Christopher P. Lowe

 Interim Chief Financial Officer 

Dear Chris: 
 This letter
serves to confirm that effective November 3, 2014, your employment with Hansen Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) shall be converted to part-time basis and you shall retain your position as Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company
employed on an “at will” basis. Your base salary shall be pro-rated in an amount proportionate to your part-time status. Please sign below to acknowledge and agree to this arrangement and confirm that this arrangement will not constitute
“Good Reason,” nor will it be considered to be a “Good Reason Condition,” under your employment arrangement with the Company. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Cary G. Vance
	
	Cary G. Vance
	President and CEO


  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher P. Lowe

	Name:	 	Christopher P. Lowe
	Title:	 	Interim Chief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

March 1, 1951

No. 55275.

#### Colberg Trading Company *v.*United States,

protest 151838-K (New York).

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The article before us is an all-plastic item, measuring approximately 2" in length and *V/i"*in diameter. It is designed to be placed in a door so that a person inside can observe a caller without the necessity of first opening the door. When inserted in the door the outside presents a glass-like surface about *1"*in diameter. The inside, or house side, of the device has an eyepiece measuring about *Vi"*in diameter. The entire device is of plastic construction, no glass lenses being employed. The clear glass-like portions are also made of plastic (plaintiff’s exhibit 1).

The merchandise was assessed with duty under paragraph 228 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem as optical instruments. At the trial the plaintiff, a partnership, was represented by one of the partners in person. In court, the plaintiff moved to amend its protest to include a claim under paragraph 1558 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as nonenumerated manufactured articles at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem. There being no objection, the motion was granted.

In the Dictionary of Tariff Information, September 1924 edition, page 540, we find:

> Optical Goods. Optical instruments are used primarily to aid or extend human vision; they also include apparatus which depends for its operation on the passage of light through prismatic or lenticular glass.

> Lenses and prisms are the primary constituents of optical instruments. Lenses are used for three purposes: (1) To concentrate and direct a ray of light (searchlight and automobile lenses); (2) to project a perfectly clear image on a sensitized plate (photography) or screen (motion pictures); (3) to magnify an image so that greater detail may be observed by the eye. * * *

In Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1948 edition, page 1711:

> optical, *adj.** * * 3. Constructed to aid the vision as by magnifying;

*369The article here in question does'not magnify. A person observed through it, while seen at a distance, yet is viewed in normal size. Further, all instruments used' in conjunction with the eye may not be optical instruments as their use may be otherwise than as aids to vision. The use of the article here is otherwise than as an aid *to*vision. It is merely a device attached to a door through which a person may observe and identify another person without himself being seen.

On this record, we are satisfied that the article before us (exhibit 1), being made of plastic and with no optical lenses included, is not dutiable as an optical instrument, notwithstanding the fact that looking through it an observer is enabled to see the figure of a person standing on the other side of a closed door. We do find this article to be a nonenumerated manufactured article and as such properly dutiable as claimed at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1558, Tariff Act of 1930.

The protest is sustained. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

THOMAS JOSEPH DUNPHY JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-2623 DFL KJM P

vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS,

Respondent, ORDER

 /

On July 18, 2005, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner has not

responded to the motion. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty

days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file an opposition to respondent’s July 18, 2005

motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order may result

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

for failure to adhere to court orders.

DATED: October 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

dunp2623.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02623-DFL -KJM Document 8 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 1
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jay Darden Loving, * From the County Court at Law No. 2

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 2-958-17.

Vs. No. 11-18-00325-CR * November 30, 2020

The State of Texas, * Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4404 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 532
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4404

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, as the ``Commander 
                  Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2024

Mr. Cramer (for himself and Mr. Hoeven) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           September 25, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, as the ``Commander 
                  Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. COMMANDER DELBERT AUSTIN OLSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Commander Delbert Austin Olson 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 ``Commander 
Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 532

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4404

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, as the ``Commander 
                  Delbert Austin Olson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 25, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-439]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR06-19-002]


Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 20, 2006, Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC 
filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions in compliance with 
the Commission's letter order issued on December 6, 2006, in Docket 
Nos. PR06-19-000 and PR06-19-001.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a 
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#64222136272b0a080d0a01371114140b161024020116074a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6e0e3f4e5e9c8cacfc8c3f5d3d6d6c9d4d2e6c0c3d4c588c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-439 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>