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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6000

JUAN GALLA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; SHEILAH DAVENPORT, CEO,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(8:07-cv-02758-AW)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 4, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Galla, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Juan Galla, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition and denying reconsideration. The order are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

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. Miller-El 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 Galla 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
Exhibit 32


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                           SUNRISE U.S.A. INCORPORATED
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


I, Omar G. Barrientos,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of Sunrise U.S.A.
Incorporated  (the "Company"),  hereby certify that the  accompanying  report on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,2004 and filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  pursuant  to  Section  13(a)  of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the  "Report") by the Company  fully  complies
with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects,  the financial operations and results of operations of
the Company.


Date:  November 15, 2004

By:  /s/ OMAR G. BARRIENTOS
---------------------------
Omar G. Barrientos
Chief Executive and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32

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 Case Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Michael Schaffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lawrence Schaffer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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/ Michael Schaffer                  /s/ Lawrence Schaffer
         -----------------------               -----------------------
         Michael Schaffer,                     Lawrence Schaffer,
         Chief Executive Officer               Chief Financial Officer
         October 24, 2005                      October 24, 2005
The Attorney General of Texas 

April 20, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable John H. Morris 

Fannin County Attorney 

Bonhem, Texas 75418 

Opinion No. H- 1157 

Re: Whether e juvenile probation officer is a peace officer. 

Dear Mr. Morris: 

You have requested our opinion concerning whether a juvenile probation 

officer who is also en adult probation officer is e peace officer. Article 

5139L, section 2A, V.T.C.S., authorizes the Fennin County Juvenile Board to 

“appoint a juvenile officer who shall have the powers end duties prescribed by 

Article 5142.” 

Article 5142, V.T.C.S., provides that juvenile officers “shell he vested 

with all the power end authority of police officers or sheriffs incident to their 

offices.” Thus in In re S.E.B., 514 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1974, 

no writ), the court held that a juvenile probation officer had the right of a 

police officer to make arrests pursuant to article 14.01 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure. See also Attorney General Opinion O-7332 (1946). 

Accordingly, in our opinion a juvenile officer whose powers end duties are 

governed by article 5142 has the power and authority of a peace officer. See 

Code Crim. Proc. art. 2.12; Attorney General Opinion H-522 (1975). We do= 

believe he would lose the powers of e peace officer merely because he is also 

an adult probation officer. See Attorney General Opinions H-549 (1975); H- 

- 

167 (1973). 

The juvenile officer need not he certified pursuant to article 4413 

(29ea), which was amended in 1975 to apply only to persons designated as 

peace officers by article 2.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 

51.212 of the Education Code. V.T.C.S. art. 4413 (29ae), § 8(h); House Bill 

1202, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 547. 

SUMMARY 

A juvenile officer whose powers and duties are 

governed by article 5142 has the authority of a peace 

officer. 

P. 4688 
Honorable John H. Morris - Page 2 (H-1157) 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: V 

:4 DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4689
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




In connection with the Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.




Dated: July 6, 2011
By:
/s/ Liu BoLiu BoChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sandra L. West, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 411]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered July 11, 1994, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree in full satisfaction of a multicount indictment. In accordance with the plea agreement, she was sentenced as a predicate felon to a term of 6 to 12 years in prison. She now argues that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive in view of her cocaine addition and difficult homelife. We find this argument unpersuasive. Defendant has a lengthy criminal record and committed the crime of which she stands convicted by victimizing an elderly person. Moreover, the sentence imposed was that which defendant bargained for in the plea agreement. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb County Court’s judgment.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 53586.

protest 113945-K (Boston).

#### V. P. Roberts *&*Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial it was conceded that the facts concerning the collector’s final ascertainment and liquidation of duties against the transferee, plaintiff herein, are the same in all material respects as the facts in *United States*v. *V. P. Roberts & Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 135, C. A. D. 356). In that case it was held that a transferee, having acquired imported merchandise pursuant to the provisions of section 557, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1557), is vested with all statutory privileges and considerations, attendant with the right to file a protest, as those held by the original importer, and that the time for such transferee to file a protest does not begin to run until exact duty liability on the transferred merchandise has been determined. An examination of the official papers disclosing that the protest was filed within 60 days after the collector’s decision, the final ascertainment of duties on the transferred merchandise, the protest in question was held timely. In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of wools, not sorted, the claim at 34 cents per pound under paragraph 1102 (b) was sustained.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 724 Solutions Inc.

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-98837, 333-55760 and333-42142) on Form S-8 of 724 Solutions Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2005relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 724 Solutions Inc. as of December31, 2004 and 2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations,shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each ofthe years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report appearsin the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of 724 SolutionsInc. Our report refers to a change in accounting for stock-based compensation.

KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants Toronto, Ontario March 17, 2005
# C_2007188EN.01000101.xml

| 11.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 188/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 27.6.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 35/07 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Peene-Werft GmbH |
| Legal basis | Investitionszulagengesetz 2005
  36. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: —; Overall budget: EUR 2,025 million |
| Intensity | 23 % |
| Duration | 10.2005-12.2007 |
| Economic sectors | Shipbuilding |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Landesförderinstitut Meckelnburg-Vorpommern |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

27.6.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 35/07

Member State

Germany

Region

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Peene-Werft GmbH

Legal basis

Investitionszulagengesetz 2005

36. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: —; Overall budget: EUR 2,025 million

Intensity

23 %

Duration

10.2005-12.2007

Economic sectors

Shipbuilding

Name and address of the granting authority

Landesförderinstitut Meckelnburg-Vorpommern

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
SCALE 1:24,000

ROYALSTON QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Royalston Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Geology mapped by J.R. Stone in 1975 (unpublished) and F.D.

Larsen in 1980 (unpublished). Some outcrops in the northwestern

part of the map area were mapped from the position of structure

symbols shown by Springston (1990, pl. 2). Some outcrops and

postglacial units were mapped using 2005 orthophoto images. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 2 of 24)

(M

O

U

N

T

G

RA

C

E)

(WIN

C

H

E

ND

O

N)

(ATHOL) 72°7'30"W

72°7'30"W

72°15'0"W

72°15'0"W

42°45'0"N

42°45'0"N

42°37'30"N

42°37'30"N

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.
# C_2006027EN.01000101.xml

| 3.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/1

---

Notification by the Republic of Estonia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

1

(2006/C 27/01)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and has the honour of notifying that, pursuant to Article 1(4)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005, on 26 December 2005 the Government of Uruguay has decided to abolish the visa requirement for Estonian nationals for stays in Uruguay not exceeding three months.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to assure to the Council of the European Union of its highest consideration.

---

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 1(4)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 10.22.1

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.

FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BRUCE K. BENNETT, JR.

ThisFIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT(this "First
Amendment") is entered into effective as of March 2, 2011, by and betweenALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.(the
"Company") andBRUCE K. BENNETT, JR.("Employee")
(collectively, the "Parties").

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Employment Agreement on September 16, 2010
(the "Employment Agreement");

WHEREAS, modifications are needed to bring the Employment Agreement into compliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual covenants, the above recitals, and the agreements herein set forth, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee hereby agree as follows:







1

---





[Signature Page Follows]

2

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have each duly executed thisFIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENTeffective as of the date and year first written above.

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.By:

/s/ Paul L. BernsName:

Paul L. BernsTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerEMPLOYEE:/s/ Bruce K. Bennett, Jr. BRUCE K. BENNETT, JR.


Signature Page to First Amendment to
Employment Agreement

3

---



QuickLinks
No. 55286.

#### D. & A. Sclafani and William Turino Co. *v.*United States,

protests 163614-K and 165186-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 351

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

' APPEAL FROM THE
IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.J., ' COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF A CHILD ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal i s being dismissed because Appellant has failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Pursuant to rule 32.1, Appellant’s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., O ctober 14, 2010. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. On October 18, 2010, this court notified Appellant that he should file a docketing statement immediately if he had not already done so. By separate letter, also dated October 18, 2010, this court requested
that Appellant pay his filing fee on or before October 28, 2010. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. Because Appellant did not pay his filing fee or file the docketing statement as requested in the October 18, 2010 letters, this court issued a second notice on October 29
, 2010, advising Appellant that the filing fee and the docketing statement were past due. The notice further provided that unless the filing fee was paid and the docketing statement filed on or before November 8, 2010, the appeal would be presented for
di smissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The November 8 deadline has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the court’s request. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with rules 5 and 32.1, the appeal is
dis missed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). Opinion delivered November 17 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)
CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES

CMS Product No. 11342

June 2010

Some hospitals do a 

better job of taking 

care of patients than 

others.

Get More Information about Hospital Care

Read, print, or download copies of the following by visiting 

www.medicare.gov, selecting “Resource Locator,” and selecting 

“Publications.”

•	 The “Guide to Choosing a Hospital”

•	 “Your Discharge Planning Checklist”

•	 “Your Medicare Rights and Protections”

•	 “Medicare and Your Hospital Benefits: Getting Started”

Compare Plans and Providers 

Visit www.medicare.gov, select “Resource Locator,” and then 

select one of the following:

•	 Health Plans

•	 Drug Plans

•	 Dialysis Facilities

•	 Home Health Agencies

•	 Nursing Homes

•	 Hospitals
The Official U.S. Government Site for Medicare

Medicare.gov Sign In to MyMedicare.gov

M edicare ’ s Hospita l Compare Search FAQ

Why should I compare hospitals?

Most people check restaurant ratings or read consumer reviews 

before they make a choice. Shouldn’t you also check the quality 

of the hospitals you rely on when you need medical care?

In an emergency, you should go to the nearest hospital. When 

you can plan ahead, you and your doctor should discuss which 

hospital will best meet your health care needs. The information 

on the Hospital Compare Web tool can help you make an 

informed choice. Visit www.medicare.gov/hospital.

What kind of information is on Hospital 

Compare?

Hospital Compare gives you a “snapshot” of the quality of the 

hospitals in your area and around the nation.

•	 How recently-discharged patients responded to a national 

survey about their hospital experience. For example, how well 

their hospital’s doctors and nurses communicate with patients, 

and how well they manage their patients’ pain. 

•	 How often each hospital gives recommended treatments for 

certain common conditions like heart attack, heart failure, 

pneumonia, children’s asthma, and for surgical patients. 

•	 How each hospital’s rates of readmission and 30-day 

mortality (death) rates for certain conditions compare with the 

national rate. 

•	 How a hospital uses outpatient medical imaging tests 

(like CT scans and MRIs).

•	 How many people with Medicare have had certain 

procedures or have been treated for certain conditions at each 

hospital. 

•	 How much Medicare pays a hospital (on average) when the 

hospital performs certain procedures or treats 

certain conditions. 

Soon, Hospital Compare will have information about patient safety 

and hospital-acquired conditions, like infections. Check Hospital 

Compare regularly for updated information. 

Here’s a sample of what you’ll see:
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Lazaro Hernandez-Diaz, Also Known as Carlos Diaz, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 563]

—Order unanimously affirmed for reasons stated in decision at Onondaga County Court, Brandt, J. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Court, Brandt, J.— Suppress Evidence.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.