alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7605

CLINTES EVONNZO PERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versusATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; HARRY CHAMBERS, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-156-1) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 7, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clintes Evonnzo Person, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clintes Evonzo Person seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Person v. Attorney General of North Carolina , No. CA-98-156-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 1998). 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
10.20


 


LEASE RENEWAL AGREEMENT


 


I. PARTIES. This Lease Renewal Agreement
(“Agreement”) is made this April 1st ,2022 by and
between:


 


Landlord: Pink Parrotfish,
LLC (“Landlord”) with a mailing address of 7366 E 119th St S, Bixby, O klahoma
74008.


 


AND


 


Tenant: Advanced Container Technologies, Inc. (“Tenant”).


 


The Landlord and Tenant shall be referred to as the “Parties”
and agree to the following:


 


II. PREMISES. This Agreement refers
to the property located at: 579 N. 151st E. Ave, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74116
(“Premises”).


 


III. LEASE. This Agreement
refers to the lease agreement dated: April 1, 20 21 (“Lease”).


 


IV.
EXTENSION PERIOD. For good consideration, the Parties agree to extend the term of the Lease by: (check one)


 


☐
- Extending 1 ☐ Days
☐ Months ☐
Years with no right of renewal or extension beyond that date unless a new agreement or extension is authorized by the Parties
(“Extension”).




 


☐-
Converting the Lease to a Month-to-Month Rental Agreement. Whereas, either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this Agreement, at any time,
by providing ____ days’ notice or by the minimum time period provided in the State, whichever is greater (“Extension”).


 


☐
- Other._____________________________________________________ (“Extension”).




 


 V. START DATE. This Agreement shall be in effect on: (check one)




 


 ☐ - When the Lease ends.




 


☐
- The Date of April 1, 20 22.


 


 VI. OTHER TERMS. In addition to the Extension, the Parties agree: (check one)




 


☐
- To further amend the Lease as follows: _____________________________________________________.


 


 ☐ - To not further amend the Lease.




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have indicated their acceptance
of the terms of this Agreement by their signatures below on the dates indicated.


 


Landlord’s
Signature___________________ Date 4/1/2022


 


Tenant’s
Signature___________________ Date 4/1/2022
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 17 - 001 53 - CV

________________________ JOE BUSBY , APPELLANT

V. ALDERSON ENTERPRISES LTD, INC. AND DENNIS JOHNSON , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 99 th District Court Lubbock C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 2016 - 522,461 ; Honorable William C. Sowder , Presiding J uly 18 , 201 7 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Pending before this c ourt is an unoppose d motion to dismiss filed by Appellant, Joe Busby. Without passing on the merits of the appeal, Busby’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1). As the motion does not indicate an agreement of the parties regarding the allocation of costs , all costs on appeal shall be taxed against Busby . Id . at 42.1(d). Having dismissed this appeal at2

Busby’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES 

L.L.C., SLING TV, L.L.C., 

Appellants

v.

SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

Appellee

______________________

2022-1558

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

01041.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the appellants’ unopposed 

motion to voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Case: 22-1558 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2022
2 DISH NETWORK L.L.C. V. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

December 6, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 6, 2022

Case: 22-1558 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                         1,048,717
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                       119,627
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                            192,108
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                          10,666
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                    300,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,671,306
<COMMON>                                          282,271
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         (31)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               167,378
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                    449,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              518,191
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                         48,684
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     6,806
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                         0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                       16,322
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                  361
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                    631,324
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                     1,671,306
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         333,200
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              31,376
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        253,424
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        284,800
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           48,400
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                57
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    48,457
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          24,570
<NET-INCOME>                                      23,887
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       66
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     23,821
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          20,225
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         32,368
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            8,703
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Jeffery A. Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Muskingum Co. Sheriff's 

Dept., eta/., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:13-cv-25 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

ORDER 

Plaintiff brings this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

state law. Plaintiff alleges that he choked on an apple stem when he was eating 

apple crisp while he was detained at the Muskingum County jail. He avers that 

while he was choking on the stem, he stumbled and his head struck the jail cell's 

bars, causing him to lose consciousness. Plaintiff asserts that when he regained 

consciousness he experienced a great deal of pain and requested medical 

treatment, but his request was denied. 

On November 4, 2013, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued an Order and 

Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 49, in which she recommended that 

Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, Inc.'s ("Aramark") renewed motion for 

judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 34, be granted. The Magistrate Judge also 

recommended that the Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 39, be 

granted in part and denied in part. As to the latter, the Magistrate Judge advised 

Case: 2:13-cv-00025-MHW-NMK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/15/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
that Plaintiff's state law negligence claims against Nurse Shane Love and Dr. 

Anthony Khoury should be dismissed, but that Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 against these Defendants should be allowed to go forward. 

The Magistrate Judge expressly warned the parties of the consequences of 

failing timely to object to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff moved for, 

and the Magistrate Judge granted, an extension of time until January 2, 2014 to 

file objections to the report and recommendation. No objections have been filed 

to date, and the deadline to file objections has now expired. The Court ADOPTS 

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 

Aramark's renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 34. 

Moreover, the Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 39, is GRANTED 

in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Plaintiff's state law negligence claims 

against Defendants Nurse Shane Love and Dr. Anthony Khoury are DISMISSED 

but Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against these Defendants 

for denial of medical care will be permitted to proceed. 

The Clerk shall remove ECF Nos. 34, 39, and 49 from the Civil Justice 

Reform Act motions report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

UNITED 

~~tt~ STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case No 2:13-cv-25 Page 2 of 2 

Case: 2:13-cv-00025-MHW-NMK Doc #: 64 Filed: 01/15/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 46908.

#### Protests 36081-K, etc., of Bernard Krulwich & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed between counsel that the merchandise consists of hemp knotted straw hats similar to those the subject of Abstract 46497. In accordance therewith they were held dutiable at 25 percent only under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, presiding by consent of

the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

___________

No. 95-3534

___________

Donald G. Tucker, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Shirley S. Chater, * Eastern District of Arkansas

Commissioner, Social Security * 

Administration, * 

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 8, 1996

 Filed: April 29, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald G. Tucker filed applications with the Social Security

Administration seeking Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Title XVI

Supplement Security Income pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. The Social

Security Administration denied his applications at each stage of the

administrative process. After Tucker exhausted all of his administrative

remedies, he sought judicial review in federal district court. The

district court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and 1

denied that of Tucker. On appeal Tucker argues that the administrative law

judge improperly discredited his subjective complaints of pain and did not

consider his speech problems, erred in posing the hypothetical
-2-

question to the vocational expert, and failed to credit the testimony of

his treating physician. He asserts that there is not substantial evidence

to support the Commissioner's decision to deny him benefits. After

carefully reviewing the record and considering the arguments raised orally

and in writing, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the

record as a whole to support the Commissioner's decision. The judgment in

favor of the Commissioner is affirmed on the basis of the district court's

opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Certifications**

I, Richard Simpson, certifythat:

 

1.            I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofCitigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-GC36 (the “Exchange Act periodicreports”);

 

2.            Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.            Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.            Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.            All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated parties: KeyBank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; GreystoneServicing Company LLC; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC;Wilmington Trust, National Association; Situs Holdings, LLC; Park Bridge LenderServices LLC; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; and Berkeley Point Capital LLC. 

 

Date:       March 30, 2023

 

/s/ Richard SimpsonRichard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
No. 62048.

#### Hanover Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 316075-K (New York).

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Exhibit 15





May 7, 2003



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated May 2, 2003 on our reviews of interim
financial information of UniSource Energy Corporation (the Company) and
Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) as of and for the period ended March 31,
2003 and included in the Company's and TEP's quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in the Company's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43765, 333-43767, 333-43769,
333-53309, 333-53333, 333-53337 and 333-99317), on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-31043,
333-93769 and 333-103392), and on Form S-4 (No. 333-60809) and in TEP's
Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-65143).

Very truly yours,




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
# C_2016260EN.01001001.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — ZS ‘Ezernieki’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-273/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 and 817/2004 - Support for rural development - Recovery of undue payments - Increase of the area declared during the five-year commitment period above the threshold provided for - Replacement of the original commitment by a new commitment - Non-compliance by the beneficiary with the obligation to submit an annual application for payment of aid - National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years - Principle of proportionality - Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2016/C 260/13)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZS ‘Ezernieki’

Applicant:

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), must, in the light of the objective of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 of 29 September 2003, and of Regulation No 817/2004, in the light of the principle of proportionality and Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the beneficiary of aid granted in return for agri-environmental commitments covering several years is required to repay all of the aid already received, on the ground that he did not submit an annual application for payment of that aid for the last year of the five-year period of his commitments, where, first, that five-year period replaced an earlier period as a result of an increase in the area of his holding and, secondly, that beneficiary did not cease to fulfil his obligations relating to the use of the area declared prior to that increase.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

1

---
# C_2017129EN.01001202.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava — Spain) — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

(Case C-525/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 129/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

1

---
# C_2023145EN.01002501.xml

| 27.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/25

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11058 – ALTOR / MARLIN / MELTWATER)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 145/15)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Altor Fund Manager AB (‘Altor’, Sweden), |
| --- | --- |

—

Altor Fund Manager AB (‘Altor’, Sweden),

| — | Marlin Management Company LLC (‘Marlin’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Marlin Management Company LLC (‘Marlin’, USA),

| — | Meltwater N.V. (‘Meltwater’, The Netherlands). |
| --- | --- |

—

Meltwater N.V. (‘Meltwater’, The Netherlands).

Altor and Marlin will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Meltwater.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Altor: a private equity firm which invests in medium sized predominantly Nordic companies with the aim to create value through growth initiatives and operational improvements, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Altor: a private equity firm which invests in medium sized predominantly Nordic companies with the aim to create value through growth initiatives and operational improvements,

| — | for Marlin: a global investment firm which is focused on providing corporate parents, shareholders and other stakeholders with tailored solutions that meet their business and liquidity needs, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Marlin: a global investment firm which is focused on providing corporate parents, shareholders and other stakeholders with tailored solutions that meet their business and liquidity needs,

| — | for Meltwater: a global provider of media intelligence and social analytics across online news, social media, print, broadcast, and podcasts. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Meltwater: a global provider of media intelligence and social analytics across online news, social media, print, broadcast, and podcasts.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11058 – ALTOR / MARLIN / MELTWATER

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
<PAGE> 1

 EXHIBIT 32a

                        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 Quarterly Report of Twin Disc, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael E. Batten, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

    (1)    the Report fully complies with Section 13(a) 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.


September 12, 2005                   /s/ MICHAEL E. BATTEN
                                     ---------------------
                                     Michael E. Batten
                                     Chairman, Chief Executive Officer