alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANIEL DAVID EGLI,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4140

(D. Utah)

(Nos. 2:14-CV-00699-TC and 

2:04-CR-00577-TC-1)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Daniel David Egli, a federal prisoner incarcerated in Louisiana, apparently was 

convicted of a federal offense in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. 

He filed in that court a motion for relief from his conviction under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60. Relying on our opinion in United States v. Triplett, 166 F. App’x 362, 

 

* After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. 

P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 10, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

365‒66 (10th Cir. 2006), the district court denied the motion because Rule 60 does not 

apply to criminal cases. Mr. Egli appeals from the denial. We AFFIRM, because the 

district court was correct. If there were any colorable merit to Mr. Egli’s arguments, we 

might be tempted to recategorize his district-court pleading. But there is no temptation 

here. Appellant’s motion to “Certify Constitutional Question” is denied. Appellant’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and appellant is ordered to pay the filing 

fee to the district court forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.64
                                                                   -------------

                             AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                            COLE NATIONAL GROUP, INC.
                            SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN


         Cole National Group, Inc. (the "Company") hereby adopts this Amendment
No. 2 to the Cole National Group, Inc. Supplemental Pension Plan, effective
February 1, 1994 (the "Plan"), dated as of January 25, 2002. Words and phrases
used herein with initial capital letters that are not defined herein shall have
the meaning provided in the Plan.

                                   SECTION 1
                                   ---------

                  Section 3.3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows:

         "SECTION 3.3. FORM OF PAYMENT. The Supplemental Pension Benefit shall
be payable in the same form and for the same duration as the benefits payable to
the Participant (or Beneficiary) under the Pension Plan, unless otherwise
provided in the Instrument Designating Participants or the Instrument
Designating Participants of the Cole National Group, Inc. 1999 Supplemental
Retirement Benefit Plan applicable to the Participant."

                                   SECTION 2
                                   ---------

                  Section 6.3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows:

         "SECTION 6.3. LIMITATIONS ON AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION. Notwithstanding
the foregoing provisions of this Article, no amendment or termination of the
Plan or the Pension Plan shall, without the consent of the Participant (or, in
the case of his death, his Beneficiary), adversely affect (a) the vested
Supplemental Pension Benefit, (b) the form and duration in which the
Supplemental Pension Benefit is paid as determined under the Plan and Pension
Plan or (c) any of (i) the rate of benefit accrual, (ii) the benefit or (iii)
the rate of reductions for early retirement committed to under the Instrument
Designating Participants or under the Instrument Designating Participants of the
Cole National Group, Inc. 1999 Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan of any
Participant as such Instruments exist on the date of such amendment or
termination. Individual Instruments Designating Participants may also include
further restrictions on amendment of the Plan."



Dated as of January 25, 2002                   COLE NATIONAL GROUP, INC.
            -----------------------


                                               By: /s/Leslie D. Dunn
                                                   -----------------------------
                                               Title: Senior Vice President
                                                      --------------------------
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment
      Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certifies
      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 Company.




/s/
                Jenniffer CollinsJenniffer
                CollinsInterim
                Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)May
                15, 2008
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRANDY LYNN SVOBODA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1328

[February 16, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Melanie Dale Surber, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502022MM000861AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### People v Ignasio Reynoso, Also Known as Ignacio Reynoso.

—Application in the nature of writ of coram nobis granted to extent of recalling and vacating order of this Court entered on October 20, 1987 (133 AD2d 1019) and holding in abeyance determination of defendant’s appeal assigning new appellate counsel, who is directed to file new appellate brief for the October 1991 Term. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.
AMES TRUE TEMPER, INC.
 CERTIFICATIONS
 Exhibit 31.2
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ David M. NutiDavid M. NutiChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
June 19 , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M
- 30 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE Room W12
- 140, West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590
- 0001 Re: **Amendment to Exemption NO. 11625**  **Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012**  **in Regulatory Docket No. FAA -** **2015 -**  **0551** Dear Sir or Madam: DARTdrones, LLC (DARTdrones) was issued an Exemption numbered 11625 dated 19 May 2015. DARTdrones herby requests an amendme nt to the Exemption to allow additional models of unmanned aircraft sy stem (UAS) that full y complies with the conditions of the exemption
. DARTdrones seeks to operate additional DJ I products that include all Phantom quadcopters and any subsequent model of Phantom to include but not limited to the Phantom 3 . DARTdrones wishes to operate the DJ I In spire 1 and any subsequent model developed b y DJIunder the Inspire product line. DARTdrones seeks to operate the S800 , S900, and S100 0 and an y subsequent model developed by DJIunder the Spreading Wing product line. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking onl y for the addition of similar unmanned aerial sy stem s, which have been previously approved under other exemptions, there has been no chang e in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. DARTdrones respectfully submits that good cause exists so that the notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned if you have an y questions concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption. Respectfully submitted, By : //////s////// Christopher Costello Chief Flight Instructor DARTdrones, LLC (215) 350
- 0137 chrisc@dartdrones.com
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 American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective
Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip J. Lussier, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Company.



/s/ Philip J. LussierPhilip J. LussierChief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7753

YA JELANI SIMBA, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus WENDY BRITT, Unit Manager - Blue Unit; ISAAC BALDWIN, Assistant Unit Manager - Blue Unit; HENRY JOHNSON, Sergeant, Prison Guard; DON G. WOOD, Prison Superintendent; FREDERICK HUBBARD, Assistant Superintendent of Operations; GARY CRUTCHFIELD, Assistant Superintendent of Programs; SERGEANT BARNHILL, Prison Guard; V. HALL, Nurse (LEAD); MARY DIANNE WYATT, Unit Manager - Red Unit; DEBRA MCLEOD-DUNCAN, Nursing/Medical Supervisor; THEODIS BECK, Secretary; BOYD BENNETT, Director, Division of Prisons; S. MICKEY BUNTON, Assistant Unit Manger - Blue Unit; KEITH WHITENER, Assistant Superintendent Alexander Correctional Institution; CURTIS BROWN, Prison Guard Captain Pasquotank Correctional Institution; FLOYD E. SLATE, Sergeant; LINDA GLOVER, Sergeant; DARLENE CAPEL, Sergeant; THOMAS MEEKINS; SPURGEON WILBURN; P. A. GALLOWAY; M. BELLAMY; P. BERGMANN; ANN BETHEA; T. TYNER; ELLIOTT ALFORD; MS. HUNT; JAMES CAULDER; A. WILLIAMSON; TAWANNA LOCKLEAR; G. HUNT; K. SPEIGHT; SUSAN MORRISON; R. SMITH; B. DIXON; MS. HUDSON; MS. DUNSTON; CONSTANCE LOCKLEAR, JANICE FARMER, Prison Guard - Blue Unit, Defendants - Appellees.- 2 - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00838-UA) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ya Jelani Simba, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Ya Jelani Simba seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint without prejudice to filing a new complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Simba seeks to appeal is not an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
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 of Left Behind Games, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Troy A. Lyndon, 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 and belief:  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: August 4, 2011/s/ TROY A. LYNDONTroy A. Lyndon
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
(Principal Executive Officer)
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 31.1****RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**I, Geoff Evett, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Ignis Petroleum Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the smallbusiness issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) language intentionally omitted SEC Rel. 33-8760 and 34-47986  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: February 19, 2008 /s/ Geoff Evett   Geoff Evett   President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40925

Summary Calendar

JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

N. VASQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CV-514

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Jimmy Lee Sharbutt, federal prisoner # 09112-062, 

appeals the district court’s denial and dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 

for habeas corpus relief. Sharbutt challenged the enhancement to his sentence 

pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, following his conviction of being 

a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied relief, concluding 

that such allegations should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40925 Document: 00512999820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-40925

that Sharbutt had not established that he was entitled to proceed under the 

savings clause of § 2255(e), which allows a federal prisoner to challenge his 

conviction under § 2241 if the remedies provided under § 2255 are “inadequate 

or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

A petitioner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy was inadequate 

or ineffective must make a claim (i) “based on a retroactively applicable 

Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been

convicted of a nonexistent offense” and that (ii) “was foreclosed by circuit law 

at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, 

appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 

904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Because Sharbutt essentially claims that he is innocent of his sentence 

under the Armed Career Criminal Act, rather than his offense of conviction, 

he has failed to make the showing required by Reyes-Requena. Sharbutt’s 

contention that Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014), stands for the 

proposition that sentencing enhancements based on ineligible prior convictions 

are errors amenable to § 2241 relief is unavailing as Persaud is not a 

substantive decision.

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-40925 Document: 00512999820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1745

JANICE FAYE TRUMP, o/b/o and Widow of Jesse Willard Trump,

Petitioner,

v.

EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(13-0537 BLA)

Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy C. MacDonnell, David T. Long, Jr., Black Lung Legal 

Clinic, WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Lexington, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff 

Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Washington, D.C.; Michelle S. 

Gerdano, Gary K. Stearman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Janice Faye Trump, on behalf of deceased former miner Jesse 

Willard Trump, seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s 

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s 

denial of living miner benefits to Mr. Trump under the Black 

Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2012). Our review of 

the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon 

substantial evidence and is without reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. Trump v. E. Assoc. Coal Corp., No. 13-0537 

BLA (B.R.B. May 29, 2014). 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