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

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 26 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BRENT B. GOLDEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

vs.

DON WATERS, Sheriff of Carter

County Detention a/k/a Don Water,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 99-7124

(D.C. No. 98-CV-298-S)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Brent Golden, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from

the dismissal of his prisoner civil rights claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Golden

was stabbed in the neck with a pencil by another inmate, James Thompson, during

a prison fight. He brought the instant case against the prison warden claiming a

violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the claim as
- 2 -

without merit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), although the judge considered

summary judgment affidavit evidence. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §

1291 and we affirm, treating the case as an appeal from the grant of summary

judgment.

In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim against the warden for

injuries caused by another inmate, Mr. Golden must show that prison officials

acted with “deliberate indifference” for his health and safety. See Lopez v.

LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 760 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Barrie v. Grand County,

Utah, 119 F.3d 862, 868-69 (10th Cir. 1997) (applying this standard to pre-trial

detainees). This test requires proof that the prison official subjectively knew of

and disregarded “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); see also Berry v. Muskogee, 900 F.2d 1489,

1496 (10th Cir. 1990) (official must disregard a known or obvious risk).

As stated in an affidavit by Defendant Waters, it was the practice of the

prison to segregate inmates who posed a threat to other prisoners. Prior to

plaintiff’s injury, Mr. Thompson had not threatened or assaulted any of the other

prisoners. Therefore, Defendant Waters, who was not present at the time of the

fight, did not consider him to be a threat to other prisoners. After the fight, both

Mr. Golden and Mr. Thompson were placed in lockdown. Because Mr. Golden

failed to demonstrate any deliberate indifference on the part of Defendant Waters,
- 3 -

the district court correctly dismissed his claim.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 58

Record of Contacts

DMS Docket No. FAA~IO:-O~ "l. 7,

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F7

Date: 9101/2007

Revision

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA,IR.A.A, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacte~ Date

ATA Joe White I 9/21109

Boeing Richard Brooks I 5/15/09

I
EXHIBIT
10.3.13


AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY
NOTE


-AND-


PLEDGE AND SECURITY
AGREEMENT





THIS AMENDMENTto Promissory
Note and Pledge and Security Agreement made as of the 30 day of April, 2008, by
and between David Hekemian, (hereinafter the “Borrower” or “Pledgor”)and FIRST REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST of
NEW JERSEY, its successors and/or assigns, (hereinafter the “FREIT” or
“Pledgee”).





W
I T N E S S E T H:




WHEREAS, Borrower borrowed the
sum of $506,000.00 from FREIT pursuant to a Promissory Note dated July 19, 2005
in the principal amount of $506,000.00  (the “Note”) and Borrower
secured the Note by entering into a Pledge and Security Agreement of even date
with the Note (the “Pledge Agreement”); and




WHEREAS, Borrower has
requested FREIT increase the principal amount under the Note and to modify the
Pledge Agreement accordingly; and




NOW, THEREFORE,inconsideration of the
payment of One and 00/100 Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration as set forth herein, the Borrower hereto agrees as
follows:




1.           The
Note is hereby increased from $506,000.00 to $1,222,000.00 as of the date hereof
and in all respects the terms and conditions of the Note shall remain the same,
except for the increase in the principal amount thereof to the extent of the
amount actually advanced there under, which advances may be made from time to
time by FREIT in the same manner as if Borrower had executed a new or
replacement to include the amount advanced pursuant to this Amendment
Agreement.  Interest shall be payable in accordance with the Note on
the unpaid principal balance.




2.           The
Pledge Agreement is hereby amended to provide that all references therein to the
Note shall be deemed to be amended hereby as well as any and all future
modifications of the Note and any increases therein.  Except as set
forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Pledge Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.


Page
87




IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have
executed this Amendment Agreement as of the day and year first above
written.





WITNESS:
            
            BORROWER
      / PLEDGOR:/s/ Carolyn
      Jacob
            
            /s/David
      HekemianBorrower
      or PledgorDavid
      HekemianPrintedFIRST
      REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST OF NEW JERSEY/s/ Carolyn
      Jacob
            
            By:
            /s/ Donald
      BarneyDonald
      Barney, President






Page 88
#### Nathaniel E. AUSTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-697.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
OurNett Holdings, Inc. S-1/A


   


 Exhibit 4.3 


   





 PROMISSORY
NOTE 


   





	 $6,425 	 New York, New York 



   





 March
6, 2014 


   


 OurNett
Holdings, Inc., a Nevada (the "Maker"), for value received, hereby promises to pay to  Josep Corominas
or registered assigns (the "Holder"), the principal sum of $6,425 on March 6,
2024 (the “Maturity Date”) in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the time of payment shall
be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. Maker further promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal balance
hereof at the rate of one percent (1.0%) per annum on the outstanding balance on the Maturity Date. Interest shall be calculated
on the basis of a 360 day year and actual days elapsed. In no event shall the interest charged hereunder exceed the maximum permitted
under the laws of the State of New York. 


   


 This
Note can be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without the consent of the Holder provided that Maker shall pay all accrued
interest on the principal so prepaid to date of such prepayment. 


   


 This
Note may not be changed, modified or terminated orally, but only by an agreement in writing, signed by the party to be charged. 


   


 This
Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and shall be binding upon the successors,
endorsees or assigns of the Maker and inure to the benefit of the Holder, its successors, endorsees and assigns. 


   


 If any term or
provision of this Note shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity of all other terms and provisions hereof
shall in no way be affected thereby. 





   


	   	   	 OurNett
                                         Holdings Inc. 


	   	   	   
	   	   	 By: 	 /s/
    Fernando Koatz 
	   	   	 Name: 	 Fernando Koatz 
	   	   	 Title: 	 CFO
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY EUGENE BROOKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:05-00006-HCM; 4:07-cv-00010-HCM) Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Eugene Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Walker Putney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Eugene Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Brooks’ motion to amend or correct his informal brief, we deny his motion to transfer, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Brooks’ motion for release on bond pending review. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8009 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8009

 To ensure that individuals receive recovery rebates before the end of 
                                 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 11, 2020

  Mr. Hudson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that individuals receive recovery rebates before the end of 
                                 2020.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES TO ENSURE RECOVERY REBATES ARE 
              RECEIVED BEFORE THE END OF 2020.

    The Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's designee) shall 
establish procedures designed to ensure that every claim for credit or 
refund under section 6428(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
resolved before December 31, 2020, by either--
            (1) allowing or making such credit or refund, or
            (2) providing the individual with a written determination 
        that such individual is not entitled to such credit or refund.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                       NORTH COUNTRY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, (the "Form 10-Q") of North Country
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, C. James Bess, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer,
     certify that:

     (1)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.



/s/ C. James Bess
-----------------------------------------
C. James Bess
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
November 12, 2003
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Hongkeung Lam, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Forlink Software Corporation, 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.           The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, 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 registrant’s 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.           The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  March 28, 2011
By:
/s/ Hongkeung LamHongkeung LamChief Financial and Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.14(b)


                      MODIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




      THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated as of February 16, 2000, between
TOYMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and CARMINE
RUSSO (the "Executive")

                               W I T N E S S E T H

      WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of October 1, 1997 which Employment Agreement was amended and restated
by Agreement dated as of January 1, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Amended and Restated Employment Agreement"), and

      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to modify the terms of the
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, representations
and warranties set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration,
it is hereby agreed as follows:

      1. Paragraph 3(b) of said Amended and Restated Employment Agreement shall
be modified to read as follows:

            During the Term, the Executive shall perform and discharge the
      duties that may be assigned to him by the Board from time to time in
      accordance with this Agreement, and the Executive shall devote his best
      talents, efforts and abilities to the performance of his duties hereunder.
      Executive may not be required to work primarily out of any location other
      than within 60 miles of the Company's current executive office location,
      however, Executive shall be required to spend such time traveling within
      the U.S., Europe, the Far East and elsewhere as is necessary to carry out
      his duties and responsibilities hereunder during the Term.

      2. Except as hereinabove modified, the parties hereto ratify and confirm
all of the terms and conditions of the said Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in its corporate name by one of its officers duly authorized to enter
into and execute this Agreement, and the Executive has manually signed his name
hereto, all as of the day and year first


<PAGE>



above written.

                                    TOYMAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.




-------------------------           By:
Witness                                -------------------------------




---------------------               ----------------------------------
Witness                                     Carmine Russo



                                      -2-
Appendix 1 Emissions Inventory Support MemorandumPharmaceuticals Production1 MEMORANDUM

TO: Anne Pope, EPA

FROM: Darcy Wilson, ERG

DATE: July 15, 2010

SUBJECT: Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk Modeling for Pharmaceuticals

Production

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on the RTR database used in estimating residual risk for the Pharm aceuticals Production Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) source category.

BACKGROUND

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establ ishes a two-stage regu latory process to

address emissions of hazardous ai r pollutants (HAPs) from stati onary sources. In the first stage, section 112(d) requires the Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) to develop technology-based standards for categories of industrial sour ces. In the second stage, known as the residual risk stage, section 112( f)(2) requires EPA to a ssess the health and

environmental risks that remain after sour ces come into compliance with MACT. If

additional risk reductions are ne cessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent adverse environmenta l effects, EPA must develop standards to address these remaining risks. As part of this second stage, data were gathered to assess

the residual risks from the Pharmaceutic als Production MACT source category.

EMISSIONS DATA USED IN RESIDUAL RISK MODELING

The 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data served as the star ting point for this assessment. Using the process MACT code, 1 a subset of the NEI was developed that contained facility, process, and emissions da ta for each facility in the Pharmaceuticals Production source category (MACT code 1201) . The 2002 NEI data for Pharmaceuticals

Production facilities were re leased through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in March of 2007, where NEI revision s for facilities in the MACT source category were solicited from State and local agencies, industry repr esentatives, and EPA. The revisions that were provided to EPA were incorporated into the NEI prior to the initial NATA modeling.

Risks associated with facilities cove red by the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT

standard were modeled in the initial 2005 NATA risk assessment in June of 2009.

NATA comments on the initial risk assessment dr aft that have been incorporated into the

1 Assigning data with MACT codes allows EPA to determine reductions attributable to the MACT program. The NEI associates MACT codes corresp onding to MACT source categories with stationary major and area source data.2 2005 NEI are identification of a closed facili ty in Puerto Rico (closed in 2008), and revisions to emissions, MACT code assignm ents, and locational coordinates for the facility.

No additional revisions have been receive d for this source category based on the 2005

NATA Risk Preview with state and local agencies in June of 2010.