alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50795

HARLAN D. VANDER ZEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STONE OAK BANKSHARES, INC., ET AL.

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(93-CV-184)

May 19, 1997 Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Harlan D. Vander Zee (“Vander Zee”) filed suit against Stone Oak Bankshares, Inc. and

Stone Oak Nati o nal Bank (“Stone Oak”), and their liability carrier, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of

Maryland (“F & D”), for various claims including breach of contract, conspiracy and intentional

inflict ion of emotional distress related to Vander Zee’s indictment on money laundering charges while

he was employed as an executive vice-president of Stone Oak National Bank in San Antonio, Texas.

Among the claims Vander Zee asserted, were claims that Stone Oak breached an oral contract by not

rehiring him after the money laundering litigation was over, and that Stone Oak breached a contract1 The Court is aware that pursuant to a 1991 amendment, a judgment N.O.V. is now renamed as

a judgment as a matter of law, but for purposes of consistency we utilize the te rms used by the

parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50.

2 to pay his criminal attorney’s fees incurred defending the money laundering charges. Before the case

was submitted to the jury, the district court granted Stone Oak’s and F & D’s motion for summary

judgment and motion for directed verdict, dismissing the conspiracy claims and intentional inflict ion

of emotional distress claims. The breach of contract claims were submitted to a jury, which found that

Stone Oak had breached contractual promises to Vander Zee and proximately caused him $293,750

in damages. Stone Oak moved for a judgment N.O.V. 1 The court granted the motion in part, entering

a take-nothing verdict on Vander Zee’s re-employment claim and his claim for attorney’s fees in

bringing this action. The court awarded Vander Zee $43,750 in breach of contract damages on his

criminal attorney’s fees claim, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On appeal , Vander Zee makes several arguments, some of which are not relevant to this

appeal. The issues pertinent to this appeal are Vander Zee’s claims that the district court erred in

granting summary judgment and a directed verdict on the conspiracy and intentional infliction of

emotional distress claims, and erred in enterin g a judgment N.O.V. on the contract claims. After

carefully reviewing the briefs and the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in

its memorandum order. See Vander Zee v. Stone Oak National Bank, et al. , No. A-94-CA-020-SS

(W.D.Tex. Oct. 5, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Wilson F. MARTIN v. Criminal Sheriff Charles C. FOTI, Jr.

No. 87-KH-0100.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Martin, Wilson F.; applying for writ of habeas corpus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, Nos. 280-632, 282-485, 281-437.

Denied. Relator must present his claim first to the district court.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 221

To authorize testimony and document production in In the Matter of Pamela

A. Carter v. HealthSource Saginaw.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 5, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony and document production in In the

Matter of Pamela A. Carter v. HealthSource Saginaw.

Whereas, in the case of In the Matter of Pamela A. Carter

v. HealthSource Saginaw, No. 1199–3828, pending in the

Michigan Department of Consumer and Industry Services, testimony has been requested from Mary Washington, an employee in Senator Carl Levin’s Saginaw,

Michigan office;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the administrative or judicial process, be

taken from such control or possession but by permission

of the Senate; and
2

SR 221 ATS

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privilege

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That Mary Washington, and any other em2 ployee of the Senate from whom testimony or document

3 production may be required, is authorized to testify and

4 produce documents in the case of In the Matter of Pamela

5 A. Carter v. HealthSource Saginaw, except concerning

6 matters for which a privilege should be asserted.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.1

        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
        ----------------------------------------------------

     I, Peter Scholl hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rotoblock
Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

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

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Rotoblock Corporation, including
    its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    quarterly report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   Rotoblock Corporation, Registrant

Dated: March 14, 2005              /s/ Peter Scholl
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   By: Peter Scholl, Chief Executive
                                   Officer, President and Chairman of
                                   the Board of Directors
OMB Approval No. 0348-0041BUDGET INFORMATION - Construction ProgramsNOTE: Certain Federal assistance programs require additional computations to arriveat the Federal share of project costs eligible for participation. If such isthe case, you will be notified.COST CLASSIFICATIONa. Total Costb. Costs Not Allowable forParticipationc. Total Allowable Costs(Columns a-b)1.Administrative and legal expenses $ $ $2.Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc. $$$3.Relocation expenses and payment $ $ $4.Architectural and engineering fees $ $$5.Other architectural and engineering fees $ $$6.Project inspection fees $ $ $7.Site work $ $ $8.Demolition and removal $ $ $9.Construction $ $ $10.Equipment $ $ $11.Miscellaneous $ $ $12.SUBTOTAL (sum of lines 1-11) $ $ $13.Contingencies $ $ $14.SUBTOTAL $ $ $15.Project (program) income $ $ $16.TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (subtract #15 from#14)$ $ $FEDERAL FUNDING17.Federal assistance requested, calculate as follows:(Consult Federal agency for Federal percentage share.) Enter eligible costs from line 16c MultiplyX____________%Enter the resulting Federal share.$Previous Edition UsableStandard Form 424C (Rev 4-2012)Authorized for Local ReproductionPrescribed by OMB Circular A-102
KELLE YDRY E & WARRE N LL P ALIMITE D LIABILIT YPARTNERSHI P

NE W YORK , N Y TYSON S CORNER , V A CHICAGO , I L STAMFORD , C T PARSIPPANY , N J 305 0 KSTREET , SUIT E 40 0 WASHINGTON , D.C . N.W.-..' i CM . 2000 7 

### •"-un i

] ' • • 

### ulO H

- •- : FACSIMIL E

(202 ) 342-845 1 www.kelleydrye.co m (202 ) 342-S40 0

BRUSSELS , BELGIU M DIREC TLINE : (202 ) 342-852 8 EMAIL - d f isher@kelleydrye . co m AFFILIAT E OFFICE S MUMBAI , INDI A Ma y 21 , 201 0 B y Han dDelivery Mr . Pau l Gretc h Directo r Offic e o f Internationa l Aviatio n X-4 0 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0

Re : 200 9 U.S.-Hon g Kong-Kore aFift hFreedo mAll-Carg o Frequenc y Exchang e Proceedin g OST-2009-016 8 Dear Mr . Gretch :

O nMay 10 , 2010 , Unite dParce l Service , Inc . ("UPS" ) filed alette r returnin g eigh t (8 ) Hon g Kon g fifth-freedomfrequencie s t o th e pool . UP S mistakenl y returne don e Hon g Kong-Singapor e frequenc y tha t i t confinue s t o need . Therefore , UP S hereb y amend s it s lette r o f May 10 , 201 0 t o th e DO T t o returnseve n(7 ) frequencie s t o th e pool—fiv e whic hwer e operate d Hon g Kong-Clark

non-sto p an dtw o whic hwer e operate dt o Clar k viaSingapore . Than k yo u fo r you r assistanc e an dpleas e cal l m e i f yo u hav e an y questions . Sincerely , Daniell e K . Fishe r

cc : Al l partie s (vi ae-mail ) Est aRosenber g (vi ae-mail )
#### Louise M. Butler WOOD, et al. v. James P. BERNS, et al.

No. 86-CC-2441.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re E.M.W. Inc. d/b/a — Other; Bon Terre Lounge — Other; Guaranty National Ins. Co. — Other; Williams, Walter — Other; Bonterre (SIC) Lounge — Other; applying for supervisory writ; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 85-16392; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. C-6669.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
July 1, 2015

Mr. Charles F. Jacques Jr.

Sky-View Aerial Services LLC

602 Centerton Road

Pittsgrove, NJ 08318

Dear Mr. Jacques:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21(h) and §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 16, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Sky-View Aerial Services 

LLC into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1346), but we are unable to process your request 

any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
3
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000512

19-APR-2018

07:56 AM
# Euroopan unionin C 123A/16.

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 123A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 63. vuosikerta16. huhtikuu 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 123A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

63. vuosikerta16. huhtikuu 2020

---

| Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- |
| | Oikaisuja |
| 2020/C 123 A/01 | Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoimesta kilpailusta EPSO/AD/375/20 – tanskankieliset (DA) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – kreikankieliset (EL) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – ranskankieliset (FR) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – kroaatinkieliset (HR) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – puolankieliset (PL) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) ( EUVL C 72 A, 5.3.2020 ) | 1 |

Sisältö

Sivu

Oikaisuja

2020/C 123 A/01

Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoimesta kilpailusta EPSO/AD/375/20 – tanskankieliset (DA) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – kreikankieliset (EL) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – ranskankieliset (FR) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – kroaatinkieliset (HR) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – puolankieliset (PL) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) ( EUVL C 72 A, 5.3.2020 )

( EUVL C 72 A, 5.3.2020 )

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

Oikaisuja

| 16.4.2020 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 123/1

---

Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoimesta kilpailusta EPSO/AD/375/20 – tanskankieliset (DA) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – kreikankieliset (EL) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – ranskankieliset (FR) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – kroaatinkieliset (HR) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – puolankieliset (PL) juristi-lingvistit (AD 7)

(
  Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 72 A, 5. maaliskuuta 2020
  )

(2020/C 123 A/01)

Sivulla 1:

on:

”Rekisteröitymisen määräaika: 7. huhtikuuta 2020 klo 12.00 Brysselin aikaa”

pitää olla:

pitää olla:

”Rekisteröitymisen määräaika: 5. toukokuuta 2020 klo 12.00 Brysselin aikaa”

Sivulla 6:

on:

on:

”Hakemukset tehdään sähköisesti EPSOn verkkosivuilla osoitteessa http://jobs.eu-careers.eu. Hakuaika päättyy

7. huhtikuuta 2020 klo 12.00 Brysselin aikaa.”

pitää olla:

pitää olla:

”Hakemukset tehdään sähköisesti EPSOn verkkosivuilla osoitteessa http://jobs.eu-careers.eu. Hakuaika päättyy

5. toukokuuta 2020 klo 12.00 Brysselin aikaa.”

---
Exhibit 32.1

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2009, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge and belief:            (1) the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented.

 

 

 

| /s/ Thomas W. Winfree | Date August 14, 2009 |
|-----------------------|----------------------|

Thomas W. Winfree

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

| /s/ C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr. | Date August 14, 2009 |
|-------------------------------|----------------------|

C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>





<ARTICLE>                         5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          51,079
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   100,927
<ALLOWANCES>                    6,522
<INVENTORY>                     6,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                693,190
<PP&E>                          849,098
<DEPRECIATION>                  110,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,338,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           673,733
<BONDS>                         1,157,231
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     1
<COMMON>                        793
<OTHER-SE>                      275,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,338,267
<SALES>                         291,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                291,685
<CGS>                           171,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   171,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                178,805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              10,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (67,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                   (475)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (67,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 13,411
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                   (80,582)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (1.27)



</TABLE>
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 100

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 6, 2001

Received

JUNE 7, 2001

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the American Football Coaches Association for

its dedication and efforts to protect children and locate

the Nation’s missing, kidnapped, and runaway children.

Whereas children are the Nation’s greatest asset for the future and are essential for the Nation’s strong and vital

growth;

Whereas more than 800,000 children disappear each year in

the United States, and the problem of missing, kidnapped, and runaway children potentially affects every

community in the Nation;
2

HCON 100 RFS

Whereas the United States is committed to the protection of

its children;

Whereas the American Football Coaches Association is a

leader in the protection of children and has provided 60

million Inkless Child Identification Kits for use by parents;

Whereas these kits allow parents to keep vital information,

current photographs, and fingerprints readily available to

provide to law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation in the event of an emergency; and

Whereas the American Football Coaches Association displays

outstanding dedication to the children in communities

throughout the Nation: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress commends the American

3 Football Coaches Association for its dedication and efforts

4 to protect children and locate the Nation’s missing, kid5 napped, and runaway children.

Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### SLATON, INC., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Robert B. DeMARIO, Appellee/Cross Appellant.

No. 4-86-0626.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 12, 1987.

Rehearing and Certification of Question Denied Jan. 28, 1988.

Roy W. Jordan, Jr., of Jordan & Stinson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.

Robert T. Bergin, Jr., of Jones, Bergin & Culler, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee/cross appellant.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this matter on the authority of *MacArthur v. Gaines,*286 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) and *Post Houses, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.,*469 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We also affirm the cross appeal.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
exv10w55



 










Exhibit 10.55




CHANGES IN EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS




     The following is a summary of changes in compensation arrangements for our executive officers
during the quarter ended June 30, 2005:



     On April 5, 2005, effective March 1, 2005, we increased the base salary of our executive
officers by approximately 6% each. We also provided our executive officers bonuses ranging from
approximately 1% to 20% of the executive officers’ annual base salary. In addition, we provided
stock options to purchase between 12,500 and 85,000 shares of Common Stock, on terms consistent
with those options granted to our non-executive employees, pursuant to the 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2015

In re: SEAN F. MESCALL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:12-cr-00215-RJC-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 22, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean F. Mescall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean F. Mescall petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has 

unduly delayed acting on his motion for compassionate release. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals 

that the district court denied Mescall’s motion for compassionate release on September 22, 

2021. Accordingly, because the district court has recently ruled on Mescall’s motion, we 

deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

PETITION DENIED