alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN WILLIAM DALTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-16069

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05452-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

John William Dalton, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and subsequent judgment dismissing his action alleging

constitutional violations arising from an investigation into his criminal activities

FILED

MAR 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-16069

and subsequent arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo the determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact,

and review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to file a complaint in

forma pauperis. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.

1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dalton’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the complaint that

the action is Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (an

action for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “a judgment in

favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

sentence . . . unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence

has already been invalidated”); see also Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (“A district court

may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the

face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”).

Dalton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

We instruct the clerk to file Dalton’s motion to recuse the district judge, and

deny the motion as moot.

AFFIRMED.
#### Thomas E. Kinney, *Respondent, v.*Ellis H. Roberts & Co., *Appellant.*

— Order reversed with leave to defendant to renew application. Opinion by Barker, J.; Smith, P. J., dissenting.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First MarbleheadCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jack L. Kopnisky, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief OperatingOfficer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 10,  2006 |  /s/ Jack  L. Kopnisky                                      |   |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Jack L. Kopnisky                                                 |
|                 | Chief Executive  Officer, President and Chief  Operating Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The FirstMarblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

----
����������	�����

�������������

���������

�������

������

�����	

����

������

�����

������

������

���������

���������

���������������������

 �

!���"�������#

!��	��

$�� %

����������&

����������	�

�'

(�)����	���������

�*

�������� 

����������+ 

������

$�� %

$�� %

�����%

������

������

�����%

�����������	���

�

�  � �����

���������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������	���������������� �����������!�������"�#���"�����

	���"����	��

��$����%�&���"

'�� (�"�

���)������*�+���������

������

�����������	���%�&���",����) ��� �����������������������$���������������������-
October  28,  1999

James  A.  Harris
U.S.  Aggregates,  Inc.
400-4  College  Avenue
Clemson,  SC  29631

Dear  Jim,

This  letter  is  intended  to act as an agreement between U.S. Aggregates,
Inc.  and  me concerning my engagement over the next several years.  It is based
on  a  conversation  in  Birmingham on October 26th with you and Morris.  Please
disregard  my  letters of September 16 and October 6 on this same subject.  I am
asking  that  you  on  behalf  of  the  Company  agree  as  follows:

From October 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000, my retainer will be $20,000 per
month.  From  this  amount I will be expected to bear all expenses of my office.
The  Company  will  bear  my  travel  expenses.

Commencing  immediately  I  will prepare the firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, &
Caldwell, and particularly Louann Smith to become the chief legal representative
of  the  Company,  including working with you and Morris, and Michael as well as
supervising  those  various  attorneys  representing  the Company throughout the
country.

During the first week of December, 2000, you and I will review the progress made
in  this  respect as well as my continuing role on behalf of the Company.  It is
our  expectation  that  beyond  the  end  of 2000, I will continue to advise and
counsel you and the Company, but in a manner altered by the activities of Louann
and  Baker  Donelson.

At that time, my retainer may be altered for the year 2001 to reflect the change
in  my  status.  During  the first week of December, 2001, you and I will have a
similar  conversation  concerning  the  year  2002,  which at the present time I
expect  to  be  my  last  active  year  with  the  Company.

In  the event I am terminated by the Company prior to December 31, 2002, without
cause  or  as a result of my death or disability, the Company shall pay to me or
my  estate  an  amount  equal to my annual retainer as established on January 1,
2000,  for a period of two years following the date of such termination, payable
monthly.

On  November  1,  1999,  I will submit a statement for services rendered to USAI
during  the  IPO  in  the  amount  of  $100,000.

This  represents  my  understanding  of  our  agreement  which  will allow me to
continue  my commitment to the Company.  I look forward to this extension of our
long  relationship.

Sincerely,

/s/  Hobart  Richey

Hobart  Richey



I  agree



/s/  James  A.  Harris
----------------------
James  A.  Harris,  CEO
U.S.  Aggregates,  Inc.
MAPA-4 

Notice of Agency Rule-making Adoption 

AGENCY: Department of Environmental Protection 

CHAPTER NUMBER AND TITLE: 125 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaner Regulation 

ADOPTED RULE NUMBER: 

.*  . - i,~< < 

?"Oog _ ~ ~ 

1 

CONCISE SUMMARY 

The Department of Environmental Protection has adopted amendments to the Perchloroethylene 

Dry Cleaner Regulation that will prohibit the installation of new dry cleaners in a building colocated with a residence or a facility inhabited by children or the elderly; require that co-located 

dry cleaners cease operations on December 21, 2020; require all drycleaners to inspect equipment 

weekly with a gas analyzer ; and limit to fifteen days the amount of time dry cleaning equipment 

can operate while awaiting repairs. 

Copies of this rule are available upon request by contacting the Agency contact person listed 

below or on the DEP website at www.maine.gov/dep/air/regulations/recentlyadopted .htm 

EFFECTIVE DATE: JUN 2 4 - . _-, 2009 

AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Andrea Lani 

AGENCY NAME: - Department of Environmental Protection 

ADDRESS: 17 SHS 

Augusta, ME 04333 

TELEPHONE: 207-287-2437 

Please approve bottom portion of this form and 

assign appropriate MFASIS number. 

APPROVED FOR PAYMENT 

FUND AGENCY ORG APP JOB OBJT AMOUNT 

DATE: 3 hi9' O 

- o 6A 17s3 l e1_-
#### Mary J. Fredenburgh, *Respondent, v.*Russell B. Biddlecome and others, *Executors, etc., Appellants.*

— Order confirming report of referee and the judgment thereon affirmed, with costs of this appeal, payable out of the estate, and so much of said order as awards costs to the plaintiff reversed, with leave to apply at Special Term for an order adjudging costs against the defendants.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Business Development Corporation of America, on Form 10-K (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Nicholas S. Schorsch, the Chief Executive Officer and Brian S. Block, the Chief Financial Officer of Business Development Corporation of America, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and





2.       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Business Development Corporation of America.





Date: March 30, 2011





/s/ Nicholas S. SchorschName:
Nicholas S. SchorschTitle:
Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brian S. BlockName:
Brian S. BlockTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
No. 54763.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 140505-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0456. JAMES T. HOLT v. CALVARY SPV I, LLC

In this breach of contract action, the superior court granted Cavalry SPV I,

LLC’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in its favor in the

amount of $8,650.59, and James T. Holt filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack

jurisdiction. 

Appeals of all actions for damagesin which the judgment is $10,000.00 or less

must be by application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6); Jennings

v. Moss, 235 Ga. App. 357, 357 (509 SE2d 655) (1998). Because Holt did not follow

the proper procedure for obtaining appellate review in this case, we lack jurisdiction,

and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 24, 2021

11/24/2021
No. 64211.

protests 59/26158, etc. (New York).

#### The Coldwater Seafood Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
12.31.2014 - Ex 10.393 Amendment to Promissory Note- Riverchase






Exhibit 10.393


AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


THIS AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 25th day of March, 2015 by and between RIVERCHASE VILLAGE ADK, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company (“Riverchase”) and ADCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., a Georgia corporation (“AdCare”). Any capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Note (as defined below).


W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, on October 10, 2014, Riverchase executed and delivered to AdCare that certain Promissory Note in the amount of $177,323.00 (the “Note”).


WHEREAS, Riverchase and AdCare desire to modify and amend the Note and desire to set forth their agreement in writing.


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Riverchase and AdCare agree that the Note shall be modified and amended in the following respects.


1.The Note is hereby amended by deleting the second paragraph in its entirety and by substituting the following in lieu thereof:


Riverchase acknowledges and agrees that the principal amount of this Note (the “Principal”) shall be increased from time to time by the amount of any real property tax payments made by AdCare with respect to the Riverchase Facility.  The Principal shall not bear interest.


		
	2.
	In all other respects, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed in its entirety.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Riverchase and AdCare have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written hereinabove.






[Intentionally Blank; Signatures on Following Page]

HNZW/502662_1.docx/3583-1














RIVERCHASE:


RIVERCHASE VILLAGE ADK, LLC,
a Georgia limited liability company




                            	
		
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Christopher F. Brogdon

	Name:
	Christopher F. Brogdon

	Title:
	Manager












ADCARE:


ADCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
a Georgia corporation




                            	
		
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ William McBride

	Name:
	William McBride

	Title:
	CEO















































HNZW/502662_1.docx/3583-1












2

HNZW/502662_1.docx/3583-1
Exhibit 33.1







Management’s Assessment on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Criteria




Management of Hyundai Capital America (the Company)  is responsible for assessing compliance with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of auto receivable backed security transactions serviced by the Company and issued on or after January 1, 2006 (the Platform), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(3)(iii)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Reporting Period).  With respect to Applicable Servicing Criteria 1122(d)(2)(iii) and 1122(d)(4)(iii), there were no activities performed during the year ended December 31, 2010 with respect to the Platform, because there was no occurrences of the events that would require the Company to perform activities.




With respect to servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv), management has engaged a vendor to perform specific, limited or scripted activities required by these servicing criteria. The Company’s management has determined that this vendor is not considered a “servicer” as defined in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB, and the Company’s management has elected to take responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to the vendor as permitted by Interpretation 17.06 of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance Manual of Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations (“Interpretation 17.06”). Management has policies and procedures in place designed to provide reasonable assurance that the vendor’s activities comply in all material respects with the servicing criteria applicable to the vendor. The Company’s management is solely responsible for determining that it meets the SEC requirements to apply Interpretation 17.06 for the vendor and related criteria.




The Company’s management has assessed the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.




Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company has complied in all material respects with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of the Platform.




KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010.







/s/ MIN SOK RANDY PARK


Min Sok Randy Park


Acting Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 18, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Vanessa  Gillis,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
Guru Health  Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31,
2011 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: August 29, 2011                      /s/ Vanessa Gillis
                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Vanessa Gillis
                                    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Director
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Stephen A. Aanderud, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: August 11, 2006 

 

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to DayStar Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by DayStar Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3782

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dairron Robinson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: July 10, 2024

Filed: July 15, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dairron Robinson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled

guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved to withdraw

1The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive

reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion

occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to

improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing

appropriate factors); see also United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th

Cir. 2013) (noting that it is “nearly inconceivable” that district court abused its

discretion in not varying further when it varied below Guidelines range).

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICEROFUNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with thequarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the"Company") and UCDP Finance, Inc. on Form10-Q for the period ending September 26, 2004 filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Robert K. Gault, Jr. certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|  |          |                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1)  | the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 2)  | the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                        |  |        |  |                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|------------------------|--|--------|--|------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| Dated:November 9, 2004 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Robert K. Gault,Jr.                        |
|                   |  |   |  | Robert K. Gault,Jr. Principal ExecutiveOfficer |
|                        |

----