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

Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

June 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51204

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BURNIS ALLEN CARRIGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-02-CR-107-1)

--------------------

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Burnis Carrigan was convicted by a jury of

being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Carrigan argues on appeal that the evidence was

insufficient to support the verdict.

In an insufficiency claim, we review the evidence to determine

whether any rational trier of fact could have found that it

establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. S ee United States v.

Burns

, 162 F.3d 840, 847 (5th C ir. 1998). In evaluating thesufficiency of the evidence, we view all evidence and all

reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to

the government. S ee United States v. Gourley

, 168 F.3d 165, 168-69

(5th Cir. 1999). As Carrigan properly preserved this issue by

moving for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s

case and at the close of all evidence, our review is plenary. S ee

United States v. Izydore , 167 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 1999).

Our review of the record convinces us that the testimony

introduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to find Carrigan

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. S ee Burn s , 162 F.3d at 847.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.
#### Jeannie L. NORWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-11J, ALAMOSA COUNTY, Colorado, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-517.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Jan. 31, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1980.

Certiorari Granted June 30, 1980.

Hobbs & Waldbaum, P. C., Larry F. Hobbs, Douglas B. Koff, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

McClure & Jacobs, P. C., John C. McClure, Richard J. Jacobs, Alamosa, for defendant-appellant.

SMITH, Judge.

The School district appeals a judgment ordering reemployment of plaintiff with full benefits and back pay. We affirm.

Plaintiff was a non-tenured teacher employed by defendant. On April 12, 1977, plaintiff was orally advised by her principal that her employment contract for the next school year possibly would not be renewed. On April 12, 1977, the school board for the *344district voted not to renew plaintiff’s contract.

On April 14,1977, defendant, by certified mail, sent notice that plaintiff would not be reemployed for the next school year. The letter, however, was improperly addressed. On April 15,1977, the post office discovered the error and routed the letter to the appropriate address. The letter reached plaintiff on April 16, 1977.

The school district asserts that the trial court erred in determining that notice was not properly given plaintiff under § 22-63-110, C.R.S. 1973. We disagree.

Section 22-63-110, C.R.S. 1973, provides in pertinent part: “A teacher employed by a school district on a full-time basis who has not acquired tenure shall be deemed to be reemployed for the succeeding academic year . . . unless the board thereof causes written notice to the contrary to be given to said teacher on or before April 15, of the academic year . . ..” The trial court concluded that since plaintiff did not receive written notice of termination of her employment contract by April 15, 1977, plaintiff’s contract for employment was automatically renewed.

The purpose of requiring written notice is the elimination of uncertainty and controversy regarding the future status of a teacher. *Wooten v. Byers School District No. 323,*156 Colo. 89, 396 P.2d 964 (1964). We conclude that promoting certainty under the statute in question can best be accomplished by interpreting the words “causes written notice . . . to be given” to mean that the notice must have been received by the teacher on or before April 15, of the academic year in question. *See Ledbetter v. School District No.*8, 163 Colo. 127, 428 P.2d 912 (1967). In *Ledbetter,*however, notice of termination was deemed received by the teacher when the postal department, unable to deliver the letter because of the teacher’s absence, left a written message in the teacher’s mail box informing her that the letter could be retrieved at the post office.

Here, on April 15, plaintiff still had not received the letter of termination nor notice of its availability at the post office. Thus, she was deemed to have been reemployed for the next academic year. Section 22-63-110, C.R.S. 1973.

We have considered defendant’s other assertions of error and have found them to be without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

VAN CISE and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
[Nos. 32257-5-I; 36552-5-I.

Division One.

August 19, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Carlos Pace, *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-1-05856-8, Janice Niemi, J., entered January 12, 1993 and April 4, 1995. *Remanded*by unpublished opinion per Moynihan, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Coleman and Ellington, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 235 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 235

 To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Election 
                             Law Guidebook.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 19, 1999

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was amended and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Election 
                             Law Guidebook.

    Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration shall 
prepare a revised edition of the Senate Election Law Guidebook, Senate 
Document 105-12, and that such document shall be printed as a Senate 
document.
    Sec. 2. There shall be printed, beyond the usual number, 600 
additional copies of the document specified in the first section for 
the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8499]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,704]


Hart and Cooley, Inc., A Subsidiary of Tomkins, PLC Including On-
Site Leased Workers from Reliable, Masiello Employment Services, Harmon 
Personnel Services, Community Enterprises, and Employment Plus Turners 
Falls, Massachusetts; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on March 26, 2010, applicable to workers of Hart and Cooley, Inc., a 
subsidiary of Tomkins, PLC, including on-site leased workers from 
Reliable, Masiello Employment Services, Harmon Personnel Services, and 
Community Enterprises, Turners Falls, Massachusetts. The workers are 
engaged in activities related to the production of air distribution and 
ventilation products. The notice of determination was published in the 
Federal Register on April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21354).
    At the request of the Massachusetts Department of Career Services, 
the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject 
firm. New information from the subject firm shows that workers leased 
from Employment Plus were employed on-site at Hart and Cooley, Inc., 
Turners Falls, Massachusetts during the period covered under the 
certification. The Department has determined that these workers were 
sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered 
leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Employment Plus working 
on-site at the Turners Falls, Massachusetts location of the subject 
firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased 
customer imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,704 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers from Hart and Cooley, Inc., a subsidiary of 
Tomkins, PLC, including on-site leased workers from Reliable, 
Masiello Employment Services, Harmon Personnel Services, Community 
Enterprises, and Employment Plus, Turners Falls, Massachusetts, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
July 12, 2008, through March 26, 2012, and all workers in the group 
threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date 
of certification through two years from the date of certification, 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 
Title II of the Trade Act of 1074, as amended.''


    Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of March, 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-8499 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of TLGY Acquisition
Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jin-Goon Kim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 31, 2022 |  |  |  | By: | /s/ Jin-Goon Kim             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- | -----------------------------
|                     |  |  |  |     | Jin-Goon Kim                 
|                     |  |  |  |     | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  |  |  |     | (Principal Executive Officer)
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Carina Sanchez Sanchez, * From the 238th District

 Court of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. CR41432.

Vs. No. 11-14-00305-CR * August 25, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

RICARDO ORTIZ CRUZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-30250 

D.C. No. 9:18-cr-00026-D-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 11, 2019

Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District Judge.

Petitioner Ricardo Ortiz Cruz appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

to suppress ammunition seized from his vehicle. We affirm.

Although we review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo, we review a

district court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the 

District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

FILED

FEB 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-30250 

Fernandez-Castillo, 324 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We hold there was no 

clear error in the district court’s determination of the officer’s credibility. The 

district court was not required to disbelieve the testifying agent. This is not a case, 

as in Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575−81 (1985), in which

objective evidence contradicts the witness’s story or the story itself is so 

inconsistent that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it. Furthermore, this is 

not a situation in which there is absolute proof of a lie.

The district court’s decision necessarily involved a personal assessment of 

demeanor and other aspects of credibility, as well as consideration of the 

documents. The district court did not clearly err by considering Officer Granado’s

statements at the evidentiary hearing in determining whether he had reasonable 

suspicion to believe that the operator of the vehicle was evading border patrol. As 

to the broader reasonable suspicion analysis, if Officer Granado is credible, then 

the search and seizure were lawful and the motion to suppress was properly denied. 

Counsel conceded as much at oral argument.

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of INverso Corp. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Randall S. Goulding, Chief Executive
Officer/President and sole Director of the Company, 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:



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 the Company.



Date:
February 12, 2009/s/  Randall S. Goulding

Randall
S. Goulding

Chief
Executive Officer/President/Director
ex_378281.htm


 


Exhibit 10.25.A


 


October 27, 2021


 


Amendment to Employment Agreement – Charlene Soco


 


CLS Holdings USA, Inc. granted 50,000 in common stock to Charlene Soco effective Nov 1, 2021.


 


Effective November 1, 2021, Charlene Soco’s salary will increase to $117,500 annually per Andrew Glashow.


 


An extension of the Employment Agreement review date is updated to November 1, 2022 and is up for consideration within 60 days prior to the expiration date.


 


 


	
			CLS HOLDINGS USA, INC.,

				 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
			By: /s/ Andrew Glashow                              

				 	
			11/01/21         

				 
	
			Andrew Glashow

				 	
			Date

				 
	
			President and Chief Operating Officer

				 	 	 



 


 


	
			EMPLOYEE

				 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
			By: /s/ Charlene Soco                                  

				 	
			10/31/2021

				 
	
			Charlene Soco

				 	
			Date

				 
	
			Vice President of Finance
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Beach, Jr., Appellant.

(No. 31625

Decided December 22, 1948.)

*Mr. Frank T. Cullitan,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Victor DeMarco*and *Miss Gertrude M. Bauer,*for .appellee.

*Mr. J. W. Woods,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of *540right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the-reason that no' debatable constitutional question is-involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
391 A.2d 711

#### Passon, Appellant, v. Spritzer et al.

Argued June 20, 1977.

Morris Passon, appellant, *in propria persona;*Bernard J. Smolens, with him Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, for appellees.

Orders affirmed; petition for reargument denied August 14, 1978.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration of decision of this case.
National Organic Standards Board

Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Subcommittee

Proposal: NOP Risk Mitigation Table Review 

February 8, 2022

Background:

On November 18, 2021, the National Organic Program (NOP) sent a memo to the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB) requesting that it review and facilitate public comment on the NOP Risk 

Mitigation Table. This table was developed in response to the 2020 Peer Review conducted by the 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) National Accreditation Board and seeks to document the 

ways NOP safeguards impartiality in the delivery of services and oversight over accredited certifiers. 

International Standard ISO/IEC 17011; Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity 

assessment bodies, which is the standard NOP adheres to in carrying out its accreditation procedures, 

along with those required by the organic regulations themselves, was revised in 2017. The new ISO 

standard now recommends that an organization’s risk mitigation controls be reviewed by a 

representative body. The NOSB is serving as this “representative body” given the board’s prior interest 

in the NOP’s Peer Review process.

Summary of Review:

The Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Subcommittee (CACS) reviewed the NOP Risk Mitigation 

Table and has determined that all potential conflicts were included and are clear. The CACS did not 

identify any additional potential conflicts to be included.

In addition to CACS’s review and the full NOSB’s review and consideration, the Board and program are

seeking feedback from stakeholders to identify or clarify any potential conflicts of interest and 

mitigation strategies not covered in the table, so that these may be incorporated, as applicable. 

Subcommittee Proposal:

CACS recommends that NOP incorporate the Risk Mitigation Table into their procedures.

Questions to Stakeholders: 

1. What potential conflicts of interest and mitigation strategies are missing from the table?

2. Could any potential conflicts of interest and mitigation strategies identified in the table need further

clarification?

Subcommittee Vote:

Motion to accept the proposal on the NOP’s Risk Mitigation Table

Motion by: Kyla Smith

Second: Nate Powell-Palm 

Yes: 5 No: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents April 2022 Page 15 of 152
Exhibit
10.1


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS


 


THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective May 1, 2022 , by and between
GREATER CANNABIS COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), and FIRSTFIRE GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company (the “Holder,” and together with the Company, collectively, the “Parties”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


A. The
Company and the Holder are the parties to that certain Amended Securities Purchase Agreement originally dated March 11, 2021 and amended
June 7, 2021 (as amended, the “SPA”), pursuant to which, among other matters, the Company issued to the Holder (i)
a Convertible Promissory Note dated March 11, 2021 in the original principal amount of $272,500 (the “First Note”);
(ii) a Convertible Promissory Note dated June 28, 2021 in the original principal amount of $272,500 (the “Second Note,”
and together with the First Note, collectively, the “Notes”); and (iii) certain warrants to purchase the Company’s
common stock (the “Warrants,” and together with the SPA, the Notes and all other related documents referenced therein,
collectively, the “Transaction Documents”).


 


B. The
Parties desire to amend the Transaction Documents as set forth expressly below.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


	 	1.	The
    Maturity Date of the First Note and the Second Note are hereby extended to April 30, 2023.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	The
    Holder hereby waives any Events of Default (as defined in the Notes) as of the date hereof (including any events as of the date hereof
    which would become Events of Default with only the passage of time) under the Notes and the other Transaction Documents, provided,
    however, that the foregoing waiver shall not be applicable to the Holder’s ability to calculate a Default Conversion
    Rate (as defined and provided for in Section 1.2(a) of the Notes).
	 	 	 
	 	3.	All
    capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Notes.
	 	 	 
	 	4.	Except
    as specifically amend and modified by this Amendment, the Transaction Documents remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified,
    approved and confirmed by the Parties.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of May 1, 2022.


 


	GREATER
    CANNABIS COMPANY, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:
    	/s/
    Aitan Zacharin	 
	 	Aitan
    Zacharin, Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	FIRSTFIRE
    GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:
    FIRST FIRE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, Manager	 
	 	 	 
	By:
    	/s/
    Eli Fireman	 
	 	Eli
    Fireman, Managing Member
1.2.1 Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements 

The passenger rail equipment constructed in accordance with the requirements of this 

Specification shall be fully compliant, at the time of manufacture, with all rules and regulations 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and shall include the following that exceed 

minimum requirements as outlined in 49CFR Part 38: 

The requirement in 49CFR Section 38.125(b) for wheelchair or mobility aid lift design 

load is increased from a minimum of 600 lbs (272 kg) to a minimum of 800 lbs (363 kg), 

for carborne lifts. Safety factor requirements in 49CFR Section 38.125(b) are 

unchanged. 

The requirement in 49CFR Section 38.125(b)(6) for wheelchair or mobility aid lift 

platform surface is increased from 30 in. by 48 in. (762 mm by 1,219 mm) to a 

minimum of 30 in. by 54 in. (762 mm by 1,372 mm), for carborne lifts. 

The load specified in 49CFR Section 38.125(b)(9) for wheelchair or mobility aid lift 

platform deflection is increased from 600 lbs (272 kg) to 800 lbs (363 kg), for carborne 

lifts.

The requirements in 49CFR Section 38.125(d)(2) for seating location of an 

occupied/unoccupied wheelchair or mobility aid is increased from 30 in. by 48 in. (762 

mm by 1,219 mm) to a minimum clear space of 32 in. by 59 in. (762 mm by 1,499 mm). 

The 32 in. by 59 in. (762 mm by 1,499 mm) clear space is needed to provide 

maneuverability into the accessible seating location. 

The requirement in 49CFR Section 38.113(b) for minimum vestibule width (in cars 

where accessible doorways require passage through a vestibule) is increased from 42 in. 

(1,067 mm) to 44 in (1,118 mm).