alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 24(b)











POWER OF ATTORNEY








KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director of CULP, INC., a North Carolina corporation, hereby constitutes and appoints KENNETH R. BOWLING the true and lawful agent and attorney-in-fact to sign for the undersigned as a director of the Corporation the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 1, 2011 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and to sign any amendment or amendments to such Annual Report, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact, as herein authorized.








/s/
Kenneth R. LarsonKenneth R. Larson








Date:  July 15, 2011
#### Sandra MONTGOMERY, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, Department of Commerce, State of Florida and Crandon Drugs, Respondents.

No. 77-410.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Arlyne Gordon Warshall, Miami Beach, Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., for petitioner.

Kenneth H. Hart (Tallahassee), James R. Parks, Miami, for respondents.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

By this petition for certiorari, a claimant for unemployment compensation benefits presents for review a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission affirming a ruling of an appeals referee which dismissed, as untimely filed, her appeal from a hearing examiner’s adverse determination of her claim.

A rule of the Division of Employment Security, Unemployment Compensation, relating to Practice and Procedure before Appeals Referees, promulgated pursuant to statute, provided:

> ***** *

> “(2) If it is shown that written appeal was not made within the time provided *183by these rules because of action or inaction of the Division which was prejudicial to the interests of appellant or because the appellant did not receive the Notice of determination or redetermination through postal delay within ten days from the date of mailing, the appeal shall be considered timely provided the appellant made a diligent effort to file at the earliest date possible.”

> ‡ $ sfc $ ‡ ‡

On consideration of the petition, and the record, briefs, and argument, we find merit in petitioner’s position that there was no sufficient showing that claimant’s appeal from the hearing officer’s determination was not taken within the time required.

Certiorari is granted. The decision of the Commission is quashed, and the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal is vacated, with direction that the said appeal of the petitioner-claimant be considered and determined by the appeals referee.

It is so ordered.
#### Harry Howard SEGAR, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-767.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 28, 1977.

Edward C. Flood, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.

By information Harry Howard Segar, Jr. was charged with attempted first-degree murder. He filed a timely notice that he would rely upon the defense of insanity. After trial by jury he was convicted of the offense charged and sentenced to a term of fifty years in the state prison with credit for time served. Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. We agree and reverse the judgment and sentence. *See Wheeler v. State,*344 So.2d 244 (Fla.1977); *Roberts v. State,*335 So.2d 285 (Fla.1976); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.460.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

HOBSON and OTT, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6916

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BOBBY LEE HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,

Chief District Judge. (CR-96-8-BO, CA-97-51-2-BO)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 4, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (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. United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-96-8-BO; CA-97-51-2-BO

(E.D.N.C. May 4, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,558,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,597,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   543,000
<INVENTORY>                                 37,989,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            78,456,000
<PP&E>                                      33,305,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             118,107,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,126,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       594,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,391,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               118,107,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           236,743,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              189,025,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            39,669,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,149,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,900,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,267,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,633,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
No. 00-764.

#### Taylor, Administratrix of the Estate of Mason, Deceased *v.*Adams et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129438 Michael F. Cavanagh 

129482 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

RICHARD T. CLERC, Personal Representative of Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, the Estate of SARALYN M. CLERC, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129438 

 COA: 254940 

Chippewa CC: 01-005641-NH

CHIPPEWA COUNTY WAR MEMORIAL 

HOSPITAL, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

ROBERT BAKER, M.D.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

RICHARD T. CLERC, Personal Representative of

the Estate of SARALYN M. CLERC, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129482 

 COA: 254940 

Chippewa CC: 01-005641-NH

CHIPPEWA COUNTY WAR MEMORIAL 

HOSPITAL, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

ROBERT BAKER, M.D.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the August 4, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), we 

direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applications or take 

other peremptory action permitted by MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall submit 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether: (1) when 

the trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing consistent with the gatekeeping obligation 

of MRE 702, described in both Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749 (2004), 

and Craig v Oakwood Hospital, 471 Mich 67 (2004), and satisfies the requirements of 

MCL 600.2955, but determines that the proponent of the expert has not put forth 

sufficient evidence that the expert’s proposed testimony is “the product of reliable 

principles and methods,” the trial court is nevertheless required to conduct a more 

“searching inquiry,” Gilbert at 782, before the court may exclude the expert testimony; 

(2) if a qualified medical expert testifies that ethical considerations preclude a scientific 

study that would yield supporting data for the expert’s opinion, the expert’s own 

knowledge and experience, without such corroborating evidence, is sufficient to establish 

a reliable basis for this opinion in satisfaction of MRE 702, as described in Gilbert, 

supra, and Craig, supra; and (3) if the trial court finds the expert’s anecdotal evidence 

based on the expert’s own knowledge and experience insufficient to show a reliable basis 

for the expert’s opinion and permits the expert’s proponent an opportunity to provide 

additional corroborating evidence, the proponent’s failure to provide additional 

corroborating evidence constitutes a waiver of any further “searching inquiry.” 

p0919 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2006 

Clerk
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6142

DEANDRE DUNSTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MARY TAYLOR, Charge Nurse with Well Path Health Care; NURSE WALL, Charge Nurse with Corizon Health Care; A. BOYD, HSA of Well Path Health Care & Corizon Health Care , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00692

- HEH

- EWH )

Submitted : July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

DeAndre Dunston , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6142 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: DeAndre Dunston, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with the court’s earlier
ord er directing Dunston to submit an in forma pauperis affidavit and a collection of fees
form within 30 days

. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dunston’s informal brief s do not chal lenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. * We also deny Dunston’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* We observe that a separate ground for affirmance exists: Dunston has pending in the same district court another § 1983 lawsuit alleging the same claims against the same defendants. Dunston v. Taylor , No. 3:20

- cv - 00727

- HEH

- EWH (E.D. Va.)

. Dunston initiated th e instant action after noting an appeal from the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of that lawsuit

. This court ultimately vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings in that lawsuit

. Dunston v. Taylor , No. 21

- 7531, 2022 WL 605631, at *1 (4th C ir. Mar. 1, 2022) (unpublished). USCA4 Appeal: 22-6142 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.3


It is agreed between the parties that this Lease Amendment shall be of no force and affect whatsoever unless it shall have been executed by the Lessor and an executed copy delivered to the Lessee. The delivery of this document to the Lessee unsigned by Lessor does not constitute an offer.








SECOND LEASE AMENDMENT


This Second Lease Amendment is dated as of the 23rd day of July 2015, and is by and between Lessor, Thornton Edge LLC, and Lessee, TDG Operations LLC pertaining to the Lease for the Office Space located at 475 Reed Road Dalton, GA 30720




WITNESSETH






In consideration of the various covenants contained herein; contained in the original Lease dated April 1, 2015, as amended by First Lease Amendment dated July 20, 2015 (the "First Amendment", and collectively, the "Lease"); the parties agree that the foregoing instruments are amended and superseded as follows:


		
	1.
	Pursuant to the First Amendment, the rentable square feet under the Lease was increased to forty seven thousand eight hundred eighty-one (47,881) sq. ft.




		
	2.
	Due to the change in square footage under the Lease, Lessee's prorated share of CAM is hereby increased to 50.1%, as identified in the revised Exhibit E attached hereto Such CAM, including taxes and insurance, is hereby be amended to $49,566.44 for the first 12 month period, adjusted  for the time period the additional space is made available. Lessor warrants that the real estate taxes wilI not increase by more than l0% per year above the base estimate of $26,500 .00. There will not be a cap on the property insurance other than Lessee's portion of the total CAM will be capped  at  5% increase per year








All other terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement shall remain and continue in effect, and shall be deemed unchanged except as modified herein.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned caused its duly authorized representatives to set their hands and affix its seal as of the day and year first above written.




                        	
	
	LESSOR:

	Thornton Edge, LLC

	 /s/ CHARLES WHITENER



	Date: July 23, 2015

	 

	TENANT:

	TDG Operations, LLC

	 /s/ JON FAULKNER



	Date: July 23, 2015
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.1







November 7, 2007

BINDING TERM SHEET FOR PURCHASE AGREEMENT
-----------------------------------------

TO:      RON BARONE
         1463 Minnesota Avenue
         San Jose, CA  95125

This binding Term Sheet is made by and between Ron Barone, an individual and
owner of the 29 East Main Cafe ("Barone") and Smoky Market Food, Inc., a Nevada
corporation ("Company").

Barone agrees to sell and the Company agrees to purchase all rights to the
equipment, leasehold improvements, and existing lease with minimum five-year
option extension (collectively the "Assets") for the restaurant located at 29 E.
Main, Los Gatos, CA. The agreed purchased price for the Assets is $150,000,
which is to be paid in the forms of cash and restricted shares of common stock
of the Company as follows:

         o        $5,000 to be paid upon execution of this binding Term Sheet.

         o        $40,000 to be paid from proceeds of the Company's private
                  stock offering, but not later than 60 days from the date of
                  this Term Sheet.

         o        $25,000 to be paid within 30 days following the opening of the
                  restaurant by the Company, but not later than 120 days from
                  the date of this Term Sheet.

         o        $80,000 to be paid by the issuance of 228,571 shares of
                  restricted common stock (the "Shares"). The Company agrees to
                  indemnify Barone from any loss of the principal selling price
                  by a repurchase guarantee to remain in force for 12 months,
                  meaning that should the Shares not be worth a minimum of
                  $80,000 at the end of 12 months, then the Company would (at
                  Barone's option) repurchase the Shares for $80,000 plus
                  accrued interest at 9% from the date the agreement was
                  executed.

<PAGE>


Page Two
November 7, 2007




         In connection with the issuance of the Shares, Barone agrees to provide
certain consulting services to the Company for 12 months from the date of the
purchase agreement, which services shall include:

         o        Consulting to the remodeling of the restaurant by i) arranging
                  required permits and ii) arranging for qualified contractors
                  for specific construction.
         o        Consulting to menu applications for new items.
         o        Consulting to local advertising and promotional programs.


ACCEPTED BY: /s/ Edward Feintech                    DATE: November 7, 2007
             -----------------------------
             Edward Feintech, CEO

             /s/ Ron Barone                         DATE: November 7, 2007
             -----------------------------
             Ron Barone, Owner
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of Immunomedics. Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 (the Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 27, 2009



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|/s/ CYNTHIA L. SULLIVAN                                  
|Cynthia L. Sullivan President and Chief Executive
Officer

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.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000338 13-FEB-2020 07:47 AM
PUBLIC LAW 106–473—NOV. 9, 2000 114 STAT. 2083

Public Law 106–473

106th Congress

An Act

To require the Secretary of the Interior to complete a resource study of the 600

mile route through Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, used by George Washington

and General Rochambeau during the American Revolutionary War.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Heritage Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF THE WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY

ROUTE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date on

which funds are made available to carry out this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the

House of Representatives, a resource study of the 600 mile route

through Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, used

by George Washington and General Jean Baptiste Donatien de

Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau during the American Revolutionary

War.

(b) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with State and local historic

associations and societies, State historic preservation agencies, and

other appropriate organizations.

(c) CONTENTS.—The study shall—

(1) identify the full range of resources and historic themes

associated with the route referred to in subsection (a), including

its relationship to the American Revolutionary War;

(2) identify alternatives for National Park Service involvement with preservation and interpretation of the route referred

to in subsection (a); and

Deadline.

WashingtonRochambeau

Revolutionary

Route National

Heritage Act of

2000.

Nov. 9, 2000

[H.R. 4794]

114 STAT. 2084 PUBLIC LAW 106–473—NOV. 9, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4794:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 23, considered and passed House.

Oct. 27, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(3) include cost estimates for any necessary acquisition,

development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance associated with the alternatives identified pursuant to paragraph

(2).

Approved November 9, 2000.
#### Leo Lucien LANGUIRAND v. Ulla Hansen LANGUIRAND.

No. 60942.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

In re: Ulla Hansen Languirand applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bossier. 350 So.2d 973.

Writ Denied.

DIXON, CALOGERO, and DENNIS, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should be granted.