alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of PITTSBURGH TERMINAL COAL CORPORATION, Debtor; Rita Crepeau et al., Appellants.

No. 7273.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1940.

Howard S. Guttmann, of New York City, for appellants.

Wm. E. Schoyer, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for debtor corporation.

C. F. C. Arensberg, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for North American Coal Corporation.

Sidney J. Watts, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for Newell G. Alford and S. W. Blakslee, Receivers.

Before MARIS, CLARK, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the district court is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Gibson, 30 F. Supp. 106.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 11
- 00325
- CR RICHARD WORLEY, JR. , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011
- 172
- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard Worley, Jr. was found guilty of the felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to sixty years in prison after Worley pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph . Worley appealed. Worley’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief , asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate rec ord and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967)

. Although informed of his right to do so, Worley did not file a proWorley v. State Page 2

se response to the Anders brief. 1
In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings,

... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1 400 ; accord Stafford v.
State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L .Ed.2d 440 (1988)

. We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly
frivolous , w e affirm the judgment. We grant appointed c ounsel ’ s motion to withdraw from representation of Worley. Notwithstanding this grant, appointed counsel must send Worle y a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel ’ s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate
Pro cedure 48.4. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673

- 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)

.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opini on delivered and filed April 25 , 2012 Do n ot p ublish [CRPM ]

1 An apparent relative of Worley’s has filed an opposition to appointed c ounsel ’s motion to withdraw and a response to the Anders brief. This person is not a licensed Texas attorney, nor does the response comply with Rule 11’s requirements for an amicus curiae brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 11. Accordingly, these documents will not be considered by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND AS OF
MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925664
<NAME> ST. JAMES GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,882)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,392)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,392)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)
        


</TABLE>
August 31, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket 

NO. FAA-2015-0173 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 

(hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography and 

videography, as well as implementation of emergency use UAS systems with public 

entities. Alaska Aerial Media requests an amendment to the exemption to allow for 

BLOS (Beyond Line of Sight) for use in aerial data collection applications with our 

aircraft previously approved via our amendments. 

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC wishes to operate UAS systems BLOS in Class G 

airspace with the use of LATAS software to mitigate safety concerns by watching 

manned traffic and UAS traffic while avoiding obstacles or collisions. Alaska Aerial 

Media currently conducts survey in remote locations in Alaska and is confident that 

UAS operations can reduce the risk associated with manned aviation. All operations of 

the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

 Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning 

this request for amendment to the Exemption. 

Sincerely, 

Ryan P. Marlow 

Alaska Aerial Media 

7960 Upper OMalley Road 

Anchorage Alaska 99507 

Tele: (907)-717-9794
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 of Security Bank
Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the Report), H. Averett Walker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James R. McLemore, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge 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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2007                          
|                                              
|/s/ H. Averett Walker                         
|H. Averett Walker Chief Executive
Officer     
|                                              
|Date: March 15, 2007                          
|                                              
|/s/ James R. McLemore, Jr.                    
|James R. McLemore, Jr. Chief Financial
Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Date: May 13, 2015

Meeting: American Petroleum Institute

Rule(s) Discussed: Oil and Gas NESHAP Reconsideration, NSPS 1.5 Amendments, NSPS 2.0, and CTG

Time (ET) Topic

9:00

– 9:10 Introductions

9:10

– 9:15 NESHAP Reconsideration

9:15

– 9:45 NSPS 1.5 Amendments

9:45

– 11:00 NSPS 2.0

 Hydraulically Fractured Oil Wells

 Leak Monitoring

 Pneumatic Pumps

 Original Rule Reconsideration Issues

11:00

– 11:10 BREAK

11:10

– 11:50 Control Technique Guidelines

11:50

– 12:00 Next Steps

Visitor Attendees: t Nme Last Name Company Affiliation
Exhibit




Exhibit 10.41




 
Vertex Employee Compensation Plan


On an annual basis in the first quarter of the fiscal year the Management Development and Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors adopts an employee compensation plan for our officers and other employees, including our named executive officers, together with performance goals for that fiscal year. The plan addresses three components of employee compensation—base salary, performance bonuses which serve as short-term incentives and equity grants which serve as long-term incentives—that are designed to motivate, reward and retain employees by aligning compensation with the achievement of strategic corporate goals.


Upon completion of each performance period (usually a calendar year), our Board of Directors assigns a performance rating on the basis of achievement of goals for the company set by the Board, in consultation with our chief executive officer, early in the performance period. The amount available for payment of performance bonuses is established on the basis of this performance rating, and is allocated to employees on the basis of salary tier and individual performance rating. The base salaries of the executive officers are set based on market and other competitive factors. Merit increases to base salaries for other employees are made on the basis of individual performance rating. Annual equity grants, made in the form of stock options, restricted stock grants or units, or a combination of both are made on the basis of salary tier and individual performance.


The Board of Directors retains broad discretion to determine the appropriate form and level of compensation, particularly for our executives, on the basis of its assessment of our executives, the demand for talent, our performance and other factors. Key corporate performance factors generally include, among other things, achievement of regulatory and commercialization goals, research and development productivity, enhancements of organizational capabilities, financial goals and other aspects of our performance. We reserve the right to modify the plan, and the key corporate performance factors and criteria under the plan, at any time.


On February 2, 2016, the Board of Directors determined the cash bonus awards related to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and annual salaries effective February 2016.  In addition, the Board of Directors granted our named executive officers equity grants under the 2013 Stock and Option Plan which will be described in detail in our 2016 proxy statement.  These grants reflect a transition from a share-based approach to a value-based approach.  The grants included performance share units that will only vest based on achievement of financial or business goals.
Exhibit 32





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 Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cardo
Medical, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "report"), the undersigned, Andrew Brooks, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Derrick
Romine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as adopted pursuant to   906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

|1. | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 results of operation of the Company.

Dated: March 16, 2009

|/s/ Andrew Brooks
                                Andrew Brooks 
                                Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/ Derrick Romine
                                Derrick Romine  
                                Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<PAGE>




                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.2


              INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material
fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein
not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration
statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person
knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an
accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the
registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection
with the registration statement.

Black Box Corporation dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur Andersen") as its
independent auditors, effective June 24, 2002. For additional information, see
the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 24, 2002. After
reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's
written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Company's
registration statements (Form S-8 File Nos. 33-75254, 33-75252, 33-92656,
333-01978, 333-34839, 333-34837, 333-81521, 333-81523, 333-89405, 333-64410,
333-64412) and the related prospectuses (the "Registration Statements") of
Arthur Andersen's audit report with respect to the Company's consolidated
financial statements as of March 31, 2002 and for the two years in the period
then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act
permits the Company to file the Annual Report on Form 10-K, which is
incorporated by reference into the Registration Statements, without a written
consent from Arthur Andersen. As a result, with respect to transactions in the
Company's securities pursuant to the Registration Statements that occur
subsequent to the date this Annual Report is filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section
11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact
contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any
omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein and thus no claim
could be asserted against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities
Act.
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2018 (the “Report”) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAELS. GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

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

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

 
 
/s/    MICHAEL S. GROSS
**Name:** **Michael S. Gross****Date:** **May 7, 2018**
 
**
Exhibit 32 

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Sixth Street Specialty Lending, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joshua Easterly as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ian Simmonds, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge: 

(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/ Joshua Easterly |
|---------------------|
| Name:               |   | Joshua Easterly |
| Title:              |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:               |   | August 4, 2020 |

  

| /s/ Ian Simmonds |
|------------------|
| Name:            |   | Ian Simmonds |
| Title:           |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:            |   | August 4, 2020 |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 15

- 1462

___________ WILLIAM STAPLES ,

Appellant

v. WARDEN SCHUYLKILL FCI

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 13

- cv - 01991 ) District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon, Jr.

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 14, 2015 Before: FUENTES, SHWA RTZ and ROTH , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed November 2, 2015 )

___________ OPINION *

___________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

William Staples appeals the District Court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s order. The procedural history of this case and the details of Staples ’s claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough memorandum , and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Staples , a federal prisoner, filed a § 2241 petition in which he challenged the loss of good time credits imposed for three disciplinary incidents

. The District Court denied the petition, and Staples filed a timely notice of appeal

. We have jurisdiction pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s
denial of federal habeas relief de novo

. Denny v. Schultz , 708 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir. 2013). A decision to revoke good time credits must be supported by some evidence. Superintendent v. Hill , 472 U .S. 445, 454 (1985). “Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whether there i s any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455

- 56. Due process entitles prisoners to advance written notice of disciplinary charges and a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence

r elied upon and the reasons for the action taken. Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 563

- 64 (1974). Prisoners may call witnesses and present evidence as long as it would not be hazardous to prison safety or correctional goals. Id. at 566.3

The District Court set forth in detail the factual background and procedural history of the three disciplinary charges Staples is challenging and performed a thorough analysis of Staples’s claims

. We agree with the District Court that there was some evidence to
suppor t the hearing officer s’ decision s to revoke Staples’s good time credits and Staples was not denied due process. The District Court did not err in denying Staples’s § 2241 petition. For the reasons above, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will af firm the District Court’s order.
Appeal Reinstated, Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum 

Opinion filed March 3, 2020

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00809-CV

GREENSPOINT B, LLC, Appellant

V.

INNOVEX DOWNHOLE SOLUTIONS, INC., ROCKWELL 

AUTOMATION, INC., vMONITOR, LLC N/K/A CONTROL & 

APPLICATIONS, LLC HOUSTON, HASSAN K. SUHEIL, GISELLE A. 

SUHEIL, AND MERLA, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-33281

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed September 13, 2019. We abated the 

appeal and referred the parties to mediation. On February 20, 2020, appellant filed a 

motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. We reinstate the appeal, 

grant the motion, and dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SCOTT DAVID NORTMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-96-

484-L, CA-98-2206-L)

Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott David Nortman, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

March 31, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on April 3, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Scott David Nortman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). 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 United States v. Nortman, Nos. CR-96-484-

L; CA-98-2206-L (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2000).* 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