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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1567

ESTATE OF JERRY THEODORE MCCALLUP JR.; VERONICA MCCALLUP, DSC
,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants
,

v.

ENVOY OF WILLIAMSBURG, and Affiliated Businesses; SCARLETT HUANG, Compliance Officer; BRIAN L. STEVENSON; ENVOY CORPORATE OFFICES; CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; MARK R. HERRING, The State of Virginia Attorney General; ADAM KINSMAN, County Attorney for Williamsburg and James City County; COUNTY OF JAM ES CITY COUNTY; COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; CONSULATE HEALTH CARE; CIERA; BRITANY MOORE; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION; ENVOY AFFILIATE CORPORATIONS; DEBORAH SHELTON AL

- JARBOUA; JEREMY MCCALLUP; FAHAD AL

- JARBOUA; JERRY THEO MCCALLUP; JUDGE WILLIAMSBURG; UNITED STATES ARMY FORT BRAGG; THE DOCTORS IN CHARGE OF CARE AND DOCTORS WHO CARED FOR MR. JERRY THEODORE MCCALLUP JR.; POLICE THAT TOOK MR. JERRY THEODORE MCCALLUP FROM HIS HOME; SHERIFFS JAMES CITY COUNTY GOVERNM ENT CENTER; WILLIAMSBURG HUMAN SERVICES; WENDY EVANS; ANY AND ALL INSURANCE POLICIES OF PLAINTIFF JERRY THEODORE MCCALLUP JR.; JEREMY MCCALLUP ’ S WIFE; SENTARA HEALTHCARE; CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG
,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. David J. Novak , District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv

- 00753

- DJN )2 Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD
, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Estate of Jerry Theodore McCallup, Jr.; Veronica McCallup, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Veronica McCallup appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to recuse

the district judge , which she filed after her underlying civil action had already been

dismissed. Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s decision to deny the recusal motion. See Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Co. , 748 F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating standard of review).

Accordingly, we deny McCallup’s motion to stay the proceedings and affirm the district

court’s order

. 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.

AF FIRMED
III

Calendar No. 185

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 119

Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to United Nations General

Assembly Resolution ES–10/6.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 14, 1999

Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. BROWNBACK) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Foreign Relations

JUNE 30, 1999

Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to United

Nations General Assembly Resolution ES–10/6.

Whereas in an Emergency Special Session, the United Nations General Assembly voted on February 9, 1999, to

pass Resolution ES–10/6, ‘‘Illegal Israeli Actions In Occupied East Jerusalem And The Rest Of The Occupied

Palestinian Territory’’, to convene for the first time in 50

years the parties of the Fourth Geneva Conference for

the Protection of Civilians in Time of War;

Whereas such resolution unfairly places full blame for the deterioration of the Middle East Peace Process on Israel
2

SRES 119 RS

and dangerously politicizes the Geneva Convention, which

was established to deal with critical humanitarian crises;

and

Whereas such vote is intended to prejudge direct negotiations, put additional and undue pressure on Israel to influence the results of those negotiations, and single out

Israel for unprecedented enforcement proceedings which

have never been invoked against governments with

records of massive violations of the Geneva Convention:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) commends the Department of State for the

3 vote of the United States against United Nations

4 General Assembly Resolution ES–10/6 affirming

5 that the text of such resolution politicizes the

6 Fourth Geneva Convention which was primarily hu7 manitarian in nature;

8 (2) urges the Department of State to continue

9 its efforts against convening the conference; and

10 (3) urges the Swiss government, as the deposi11 tary of the Geneva Convention, not to convene a

12 meeting of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Calendar No. 185

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 119

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to

ES–10/6.United Nations General Assembly Resolution

JUNE 30, 1999

Reported without amendment
#### Conway V. PHILLIPS v. Randall J. BROUSSARD, et al.

No. 87-CC-2327.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Conway V. Phillips, filing petition for injunction; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 86-8103; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW87 1111.

Denied.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 16

                   LETTER RE CHANGE IN CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT

March 31, 1998


Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Dear Sir/Madam:

We have read Item 9 included in the Form 10-K dated December 31, 1997 of T/SF
Communications Corporation to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and are in agreement with the statements contained therein.

Very truly yours,

/s/  Arthur Andersen LLP


cc:  Mr. Steven J. Hunt
      Chief Financial Officer
      T/SF Communications Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,472
<SECURITIES>                                    48,125
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (41)
<INVENTORY>                                         88
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,737
<PP&E>                                          26,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,999
<BONDS>                                          2,331
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           663
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,085
<SALES>                                         85,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,749
<CGS>                                           69,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,322
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,040
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 60

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Iowa Class Battleship, the U.S.S. Wisconsin

(BB-64), is an honored warship in United States naval

history, with 6 battle stars and 5 citations and medals

during her 55 years of service;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin was launched on December 7,

1943, by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard; sponsored by

Mrs. Walter S. Goodland, wife of then-Governor Goodland of Wisconsin; and commissioned at Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, on April 16, 1944, with Captain Earl E.

Stone in command;

Whereas her first action for Admiral William ‘‘Bull’’ Halsey’s

Third Fleet was a strike by her task force against the

Japanese facilities in Manila, thereby supporting the amphibious assault on the Island of Mindoro, which was a

vital maneuver in the defeat of the Japanese forces in the

Philippines;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin joined the Fifth Fleet to provide strategic cover for the assault on Iwo Jima by striking the Tokyo area;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin supplied crucial firepower for

the invasion of Okinawa;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin served as a flagship for the

Seventh Fleet during the Korean conflict;
2

SCON 60 ES

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin provided consistent naval gunfire support during the Korean conflict to the First Marine Division, the First Republic of Korea Corps, and

United Nations forces;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin received 5 battle stars for

World War II and one for the Korean conflict;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin returned to combat on January 17, 1991;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin served as Tomahawk strike

warfare commander for the Persian Gulf, and directed

the sequence of Tomahawk launches that initiated Operation Desert Storm; and

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin, decommissioned on September 30, 1991, is berthed at Portsmouth, Virginia; and

may soon be berthed at Nauticus, the National Maritime

Museum in Norfolk, Virginia, where she would serve as

a floating monument and an educational museum: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be

4 issued by the United States Postal Service in honor

5 of the U.S.S. Wisconsin and all those who served

6 aboard her; and
3

SCON 60 ES

1 (2) the Citizen’s Stamp Advisory Committee

2 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

3 such a postage stamp be issued.

Passed the Senate October 3 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 60

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of

the U.S.S. Wisconsin and all those who servedaboard her.
EX-10.3





 Exhibit 10.3 

English Summary of Management Share Incentive Plan of Burning Rock Biotech Limited 

 

	1.	 Definition. Wherever the following terms are used in the Plan they shall have the meanings specified
below, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. 


  

	 	a.	 “Company” means Burning Rock Biotech Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands. 


  

	 	b.	 “Option” means a right granted to a Participant of the Plan to purchase a specified number of
ordinary shares of the Company at a specified price during specified time periods. 


  

	 	c.	 “Participant” means a person who, as a member of the management team of the Company or any of
its subsidiaries, has been granted an Option pursuant to the Plan. 


  

	 	d.	 “Plan” means this Management Share Incentive Plan of the Company adopted on January 31,
2019. 


  

	2.	 Purpose. The purpose of the Plan is to provide incentives to the management of the Company and its
subsidiaries. 


  

	3.	 Number of Shares. The maximum number of ordinary shares reserved for issuance under this Plan is 5% of
the total outstanding number of shares of the Company on an as converted and fully diluted basis (after taking into account the Options). 


  

	4.	 Eligibility. Persons eligible to participate in this Plan include management of the Company and its
subsidiaries. 


  

	5.	 Vesting Schedule. The Options will vest at the fourth
(4th) anniversary of the respective dates of grant and are subject to the Participants’ continued employment with the Company. 



 

	6.	 Term and termination. The term of each Option shall be (i) ten years from the date of grant of the
Option, or (ii) one year following the date of a Participant’s termination of employment due to death or severe disabilities that render the Participant unable to continue working for the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, before the
Options are vested, the Company may cancel the Options granted to a Participant without consideration if the Participant’s employment with the Company is terminated for reasons other than death or severe disabilities. 



 

	7.	 Plan Administration. The board of directors of the company shall determine the Participants of the
Plan, number of options to be granted and exercise price. The chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Company may determine the grant date, vesting conditions and other terms and conditions of the Options.
#### LODI TRUST CO. v.COHN.

No. 7120.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Nov. 27, 1939.

Gross & Blumberg (by Leo Blumberg), of Newark, N. J. (Milton H. Goldberger, of Newark, N. J., .on the brief), for appellant.

L. Stanley Ford, of Hackensack, ,N. J., for appellee.

Before BIDDLE, JONES, and BUFFINGTON,-Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Objections to the bankrupt’s application for discharge were referred to the Referee. From “an examination of the briefs and voluminous testimony” which had been taken from time to time throughout the bankruptcy and which had been formally reoffered and received in evidence without exception at the hearing on the objections, the Referee found that the bankrupt was without any estate; that he had not concealed either assets or records; and that “the absence of records is explained and *27justified by the circumstances.” Accordingly, the Referee entered an order granting the bankrupt his discharge. The creditor, which had originally filed the objections, thereupon abandoned the contest but a lately ascertained creditor was prompted to petition for a review of the Referee’s order.

As there was ample evidence, to sustain the Referee’s findings and conclusion, the court below properly dismissed the appellant creditor’s petition for review and approved and affirmed the order of the Referee granting the discharge. Southern Pine Co. v. Savannah Trust Co., 5 Cir., 141 F. 802.

Notwithstanding the burden was upon the objecting creditors to establish the facts necessary to prevent the bankrupt’s discharge (Spies v. Sytsma, 8 Cir., 56 F.2d 520, 522), they failed to offer any evidence in support of their objections but relied on inferences drawn from the testimony which had been taken before the Referee in examinations of the bankrupt prior to the filing of the objections. Any such inferences unfavorable to the bankrupt were found by the Referee, from the bankrupt’s testimony as a whole, to have been answered satisfactorily. The burden was never shifted by any showing on the part of the objectors, as in Rosenberg v. Bloom et al., 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 249-251, cited and relied upon by the appellant.

Nowhere in the record is there apparent either the abuse of discretion or mistake of law which would call for reversal.

The order of the District Court is therefore affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10(I)
                                                                   -------------


                                IROQUOIS BANCORP

                        ANNUAL MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


OBJECTIVES

o    Reward Iroquois and Member Bank Managers for the achievement of key
     business objectives.

o    Provide Managers with an incentive to exceed budgeted pre-tax income
     performance.

o    Supports Total Compensation Strategy of targeting slightly below market for
     planned results and paying above market for the achievement of above plan
     results.


PLAN DESIGN FEATURES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Incentive Weighting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Threshold       Target       Superior                       Ind./
                                                Award         Award          Award          Bank          Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>          <C>                                 <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>
Tier 1       President/ CEO - Iroquois           20%           45%            70%           75%            25%
Tier II      CFO and COO-Iroquois                15%           35%            55%           75%            25%
             and Homestead CEO
Tier III     Senior Management                   10%           25%            40%           50%            50%
Tier IV      Mid Management                       5%           15%            25%           25%            75%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>

o    The Bank-wide goal will be measured by the member bank's planned net income
     and Return on Equity and payout will be interpolated between threshold
     (90%), target (100%), and superior (120%) performance.

o    Individual/Department goals will be assigned a weighting, and achievement
     will be determined on a pass/fail basis.

o    There will be no payment if Bank performance is below threshold level or
     below 90% of the average four year median Return on Equity of the Iroquois
     Bancorp regional bank peer group. The award will be capped at the superior
     level.

o    It is the intent of the Plan that no adjustment be made for the effect of
     extraordinary items on net income. Any adjustment or exception would be
     based on a recommendation by the member bank's management or Board of
     Directors and require approval of the Iroquois Nominating/Personnel
     Committee.
Exhibit 32.1








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 Fund.com Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Gregory Webster, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fund.com Inc. and will be retained by Fund.com Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/  Gregory
      WebsterGregory
      WebsterChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





November
30, 2009
---

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), each
of the undersigned officers of Newport Gold, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, [to such officer's knowledge], that:

The Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended March 31, 2007(the
"Form 10-QSB") 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-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: August 20, 2007 | /s/ Derek Bartlett                       
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                       | Derek Bartlett, Chief Executive
  Officer
|                       |                                          
|Dated: August 20, 2007 | /s/ John Arnold                          
|                       | John Arnold, Chief Financial
  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
SEC or its staff upon request.

---
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Atlas America Public #14-2005 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
undersigned, the Chairwoman and Chief Executive Officer of Universal Travel
Group (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and
solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
      October 28, 2009
              /s/ Jiangping JiangJiangping
      JiangChairman
      and Chief Executive
Officer
#### Warren ALFRED v. CITY OF EUNICE, et al.

No. 87-C-0719.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Eunice, City of; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-285; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 90601.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1131.

Denied.