alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DE NN I S MI C HA E L GI E C K, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. R . J . D O N O V A N , W a r d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s, a nd R O M E R O , C h ie f

M e d ic a l O f

f ic e r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 55775 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 4 6 0 - D M SJ MA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D a naM . S abr a w , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B efo re: T R O T T , G O U L D , an d R A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED NO V 02 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 55775 2 D e nni s M i c ha e l G i e c k, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 50( a ) i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng const i tut i on al vi ol at i on s. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e d i sm i ss. W e a r e unabl e t o c ons i de rG i e c k’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by grant i ng defe nd ant s’ m ot i on for j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw because G i ec k fai l ed to p r o v id e a n y p o r tio n o f th e tr ia l tr a n s c r ip t. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; H al l v. W hi t l ey , 93 5 F . 2d 16 4, 16 5 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( per c uri am ). T o the ext entthatG i ec k se eks t o chal l enge the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of prod uct i on of tra nscr i pt s a t go vernm entexpense, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on because G i ec k d id n o t e x p la in th e is s u e s th a t h e w o u ld r a is e o n ap p e a l. See M cKi nn eyv. A nde rs on , 9 2 4 F .2 d 1 5 0 0 , 1 5 1 1 - 1 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) , ov e r r ul e d on othe rgr ounds by H el l i ngv. McKi nn ey , 502 U . S . 903 ( 1991) ( r e vi e w i ng f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on and n ot i ng that“ [p] rodu ct i on of the tra nscr i ptatgo vernm entexpense f or an appel l anti n form a pauperi s i n a ci vi l ca se i s proper und er28 U . S . C . § 7 53 i f atri al j ud ge ce rt i fi es thatthe appeal i s notfr i vo l ou s a nd pres ent s asubst ant i al qu es t i on ”) . DI S MI S S E D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYL A. LUDY, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-277 Erie

v. )

)

WARDEN, FCI MCKEAN, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on September 23,

2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13], filed on

October 27, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be denied and that the

Motion to Expedite this case [Doc. No. 11] be denied as moot. The parties were

allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on

Petitioner by certified mail and on Respondent. Petitioner was subsequently granted

two extensions of time in which to file objections [Doc. Nos. 14 and 15]. No objections

were filed. After de novo review of the petition, and documents in the case, together

with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DENIED and the Motion to Expedite this case is DENIED as moot. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on October 27, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00277-SJM-SPB Document 16 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications

I, Brian J. Berchtold, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment number one to annual report on Form 10-KSB of ALCiS Health, Inc. (registrant) for the year
ended March 31, 2007;

2. Based on my knowledge, this amendment does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this amendment report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



|                     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: July 29, 2007 |  | /s/ BRIAN J. BERCHTOLD       
|                     |  | Brian J. Berchtold           
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)



17
#### FREEPORT SULPHUR COMPANY, DIVISION OF FREEPORT MINERALS COMPANY and Sulphur Terminals, Inc., Petitioners, v. Joseph W. LANDERS, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, et al., Respondents.

No. KK-259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 18, 1978.

William L. Earl, Miami, and Henry Dean, of Peeples, Earl & Blank, Miami, and John T. Allen, Jr., St. Petersburg, for petitioners.

Joseph W. Landers, Jr., Tallahassee, Louis de la Parte, Tampa, John P. Harllee, III, of Harrison, Harllee, Porges & Mastry, and Dewey A. Dye, Jr., of Dye, Cleary, Scott, Deitrich & Price, Bradenton, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Before petitioners seeking a writ of prohibition challenged the Department of Environmental Regulation’s jurisdiction, pursuant to Fla.Admin.Code Rule 17-1.60, to review interim orders of hearing officers in proceedings under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, 1977, they challenged the rule in Section 120.56 proceedings. The hearing officer found Rule 17-1.60 to be invalid. Therefore the issue of this petition for writ of prohibition is now moot. We of course are not asked in this proceeding, nor do we decide, the appropriateness of the hearing officer’s order entered in another ease as to the validity of the rule.

The petition for writ of prohibition is DENIED.

McCORD, C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 104–63—DEC. 8, 1995 109 STAT. 687

Public Law 104–63

104th Congress

An Act

To modify the operation of the antitrust laws, and of State laws similar to the

antitrust laws, with respect to charitable gift annuities.

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 ‘‘Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust

Relief Act of 1995’’.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS.

(a) EXEMPT CONDUCT.—Except as provided in subsection (b),

it shall not be unlawful under any of the antitrust laws, or under

a State law similar to any of the antitrust laws, for 2 or more

persons described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) that are exempt from taxation under

section 501(a) of such Code to use, or to agree to use, the same

annuity rate for the purpose of issuing 1 or more charitable gift

annuities.

(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect

to the enforcement of a State law similar to any of the antitrust

laws, with respect to conduct described in subsection (a) occurring

after the State enacts a statute, not later than 3 years after the

date of the enactment of this Act, that expressly provides that

subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to such conduct.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) ANNUITY RATE.—The term ‘‘annuity rate’’ means the

percentage of the fair market value of a gift (determined as

of the date of the gift) given in exchange for a charitable

gift annuity, that represents the amount of the annual payment

to be made to 1 or 2 annuitants over the life of either or

both under the terms of the agreement to give such gift in

exchange for such annuity.

(2) ANTITRUST LAWS.—The term ‘‘antitrust laws’’ has the

meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the

Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12), except that such term includes

section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.

45) to the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods

of competition.

(3) CHARITABLE GIFT ANNUITY.—The term ‘‘charitable gift

annuity’’ has the meaning given it in section 501(m)(5) of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(m)(5)).

15 USC 37a.

15 USC 37.

15 USC 1 note.

Charitable Gift

Annuity

Antitrust Relief

Act of 1995.

Dec. 8, 1995

[H.R. 2525]
109 STAT. 688 PUBLIC LAW 104–63—DEC. 8, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2525:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–336 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Nov. 28, considered and passed House.

Nov. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

(4) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act

(15 U.S.C. 12(a)).

(5) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning given it in section 4G(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15g(2)).

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF ACT.

This Act shall apply with respect to conduct occurring before,

on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Approved December 8, 1995.

15 USC 37 note.
EX 32.1



PRESIDENTS CERTIFICATION



CERTIFICATE 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 (the Report) on the Form 10-QSB/A of The Bralorne Mining Company (the Company) for the period ended February 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rene Bernard, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and belief:



1.    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.     The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.







/s/ Rene Bernard



Rene Bernard



Chief Executive Officer

President and Director



Date:  June 9, 2004
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT GIAMETTA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 359

[ May 10, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Gary L. Sweet , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 562002CF004311A

.

Robert Giametta, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., T AYLOR and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.41

SECOND AMENDMENT TO  HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION  EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN dated as of December 22, 2003, is
made and adopted by The DIRECTV Group ("DIRECTV"). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Hughes Electronics Corporation
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan").

WHEREAS,
The DIRECTV Group, the renamed Hughes Electronics Corporation, a Delaware corporation, maintains the Plan;

WHEREAS,
pursuant to Article 11 of the Plan, DIRECTV may amend the Plan from time to time;

WHEREAS,
DIRECTV desires to amend the Plan to eliminate future deferrals as set forth herein; and

WHEREAS,
this Second Amendment was adopted by the Compensation Committee of the DIRECTV Board of Directors on November 9, 2006, effective as of December 31, 2006.

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:





I
hereby certify that the foregoing Second Amendment to the Hughes Electronics Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan was duly adopted by The DIRECTV Group on
December 31, 2006.

Executed
on this    day of November, 2006.

| |  | /s/ Larry D. HunterLarry D. Hunter, Corporate Secretary
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04945**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 04945\04945_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04945\04945_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04945\04945_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04945\04945_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement x 04945\Supporting Documents\Final EPA Copy-Davis Besse-Part A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04945\Supporting Documents\Final EPA Copy-Davis Besse-Part A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04945\04945_Checklist_110110_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04945\04945_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF IKON RECEIVABLES,
LLC PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of IKON Receivables, LLC (the
Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the Report) 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.

|/s/ RUSSELL S. SLACK               
Russell S. Slack                      
President and Principal Executive Officer 
Date:  August 14, 2003 | /s/ HARRY G. KOZEEHarry G. KozeeVice President-Finance, Principal Financial Officer, and
Principal Accounting OfficerDate:  August 14, 2003
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONI, Scott Thornock, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nicklebys.com, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

> 
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;				(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and				(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

> 
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and				(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

			Date: August 11, 2005   /s/ Scott Thornock                                             Scott Thornock				Chief Executive Officer, President and Treasurer

----
Case 1:06-cv-00143-GLL-LPL   Document 5   Filed 08/28/06   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00143-GLL-LPL   Document 5   Filed 08/28/06   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2014-03-10T15:36:24-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Mrs. Mildred W. INABINET et al. v. STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 7832.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

July 2, 1969.

Pittman & Matheny, by Iddo Pittman, Jr., Hammond, for appellants.

Coe, Nowalsky & Lambert, by John D. Lambert, Jr., New Orleans, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS, and BAILES, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This case is before us on a motion to dismiss the appeal. The basis of the motion is that the transcript of the testimony was wrongfully placed in the record by appellants because it was paid for by the plaintiffs-appellees and is therefore their property. They claim that, since the defendants-appellants knew the testimony was not theirs, and did not pay for same, it should not be considered as part of the record, and the appeal should be dismissed because the record is incomplete, or because all costs have not been paid by the appellant.

The motion to dismiss was filed in this court on May 27, 1959. The return day was May 1, 1969, and the record was lodged in this court on April 22, 1969.

Article 2161 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

> “An appeal shall not be dismissed because of any irregularity, error, or defect unless it is imputable to the appellant. Except as provided in Article 2162, a motion to dismiss an appeal because of any irregularity, error, or defect which is imputable to the appellant must be filed within three days, exclusive of holidays, of the return day or the date on which the record on appeal is lodged in the appellate court, whichever is later.”

Since the motion was filed more than three days after the return date, it is too late. The motion to dismiss is denied, at mover’s cost.

Motion denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99


                                 [DEMEGEN LOGO]


Mr. James Colker
Managing General Partner
CEO Venture Fund III
2000 Technology Drive, Suite 160
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-3451


June 28, 2001

RE:   Demegen, Inc. (the "Company")/CEO Venture Fund III - Consent to Increase
      the Number of Directors and Amend the Amended and Restated By-Laws of
      the Company



Dear Jim:

This letter is written to evidence the consent of CEO Venture Fund III, the
holder of all the Company's Convertible Preferred Stock ("CEO"), to the
following matters:

1.   In accordance with Article IV, Subsections 7B and 8G of the Company's
     Articles of Incorporation, as amended (the "Articles"), the increase of
     the size of the Board of Directors from seven to eight directors and, for
     purposes of the election of directors of the Company's next annual meeting,
     the increase in the number of directors to be elected by the holders of the
     Company's Common Stock from four to five directors.

2.   In accordance with Article IV, Subsection 8C of the Articles, amendment of
     Article IV, Subsection 6 of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws to
     read as follows:

               Except as otherwise provided in the Corporation's Articles of
               Incorporation, any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors,
               including a vacancy resulting from an increase in the number of
               directors, may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of
               the remaining directors even though there be less than a quorum
               at any meeting of the Board of Directors called to fill that
               vacancy. A director elected to fill a vacancy of a predecessor
               director shall be elected for the unexpired term of his
               predecessor in office, and shall hold such office until his
               successor is duly elected and qualified.

In accordance with the Company's Articles, if the foregoing accurately reflects
the terms of CEO's consent, please so indicate in the space provided below on
the additional enclosed copy of the letter and return it to me at your earliest
convenience.


Very truly yours,


/s/ RICHARD D. EKSTROM
----------------------------------
Richard D. Ekstrom, President



ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONSENTED TO ON JUNE 28, 2001

CEO VENTURE FUND III


By:  /s/ JAMES COLKER
    -------------------------------
    James Colker







          Demegen, Inc.  o  1051 Brinton Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15221  o
                       412-241-2150  o  Fax 412-241-2161