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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6462

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., a/k/a June, a/k/a

Junior,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-90-105, CA-96-424)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date

Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it

would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have

sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The

only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court

extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on May 15, 1996; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on March 23, 1998. Appellant’s

failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to obtain either an

extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court

without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal.

We therefore deny Appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2392

EBRAHIM RADBOD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GABRIEL ARIAS, Corporal, Howard County Police Department,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-00897-RDB)

Submitted: April 29, 2013 Decided: May 17, 2013

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ebrahim Radbod, Appellant Pro Se. David Reid Moore, HOWARD 

COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ebrahim Radbod appeals the district court’s order 

entering judgment on the jury’s verdict in his civil action in 

favor of defendant Corporal Gabriel Arias. We grant Radbod 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. Although 

there is no transcript of the jury trial in the record before 

us, we may authorize the preparation of a transcript at 

government expense where the litigant proceeds IFP and has shown 

the existence of a substantial question for appeal. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 753(f) (2006). After reviewing the parties’ informal briefs, 

we conclude that Radbod has not raised a substantial question 

for appeal. See Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F. Supp. 903, 905 

(D. Md. 1959) (defining substantial question). Accordingly, we 

deny his request for a transcript at government expense, see

Rhodes v. Corps of Eng’rs of U.S. Army, 589 F.2d 358, 359 (8th 

Cir. 1978) (per curiam), deny as moot his motion to expedite the 

decision on his IFP application, and affirm the district court’s 

order entering judgment on the jury’s verdict. Radbod v. Arias, 

No. 1:10-cv-00897-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2012). 

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.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 CU BANCORP 2007 EQUITY AND INCENTIVE PLAN 

AS AMENDED AND RESTATED JULY 31, 2014 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the CU Bancorp 2007 Equity and Incentive Plan as Amended and Restated July 31, 2014 (the
“Plan”) by the Board of Directors of CU Bancorp (the “Board”) is entered into and effective as of December 15, 2016 (the “Effective Date”). 

WHEREAS, Section 13.1 of the Plan provides the Company the right, but not the obligation, to deduct from shares of Stock issuable to a
Participant upon the exercise or settlement of an Award, or to accept form the Participant the tender of, a number of whole shares of Stock having a Fair Market Value, as determined by the Company, equal to all or any part of the tax withholding
obligations of the Company; 
 WHEREAS, Section 13.1 limits the number of shares of Stock for settlement of the tax withholding to that
number of shares determined by the applicable minimum statutory withholding rate; and 
 WHEREAS, on March, 2016, the Financial Accounting
Standards Board released ASU 2016-09, which amends ASC Topic 718, to allow stock withholding beyond the applicable minimum statutory withholding rate and up to the maximum statutory rate without causing the
award to be classified as a “liability.” 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows: 

1. The last sentence of Section 13.2 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“The Fair Market Value of any shares of Stock withheld or tendered to satisfy any such tax withholding obligations shall not exceed the amount determined
by the applicable maximum statutory withholding rates.” 
 2. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the law of the State of California, without giving effect to the conflict of law principles thereof. 
 3. No Other
Changes. Except as expressly modified hereby, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect. 
 [Signature
Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
officer as of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	CU BANCORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David Rainer

	Name:	 	David Rainer
	Title:	 	CEO
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Anita Wolman

	Name:	 	Anita Wolman
	Title:	 	Corporate Secretary


 [Signature Page – Amendment to the 2007 Equity and Incentive Plan as Amended and Restated
July 31, 2014] 

  
 2
UNITED STATES

SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON,D.C. 20549

 

FORM 20-F

 

OR

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

OR

OR

Date of event requiring this shell companyreport

 

For the transition period from            to

 

Commission file number 001-14370

 

COMPAÑÍA DE MINAS BUENAVENTURAS.A.A.

 (Exact name of Registrant as specifiedin its charter)

 

BUENAVENTURA MINING COMPANY INC.

(Translation of Registrant’s nameinto English)

 

REPUBLIC OF PERU

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

 

CARLOS VILLARAN 790

SANTA CATALINA, LA VICTORIA, LIMA 13, PERU

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

Carlos E. Gálvez, Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer

Telephone:  (511) 419-2540

Facsimile:  (511) 471-7349

Address: Carlos Villarán 790, SantaCatalina, La Victoria, Lima 13, Perú

(Name, telephone, e-mail and/or facsimilenumber and address of company contact person)

 

Securities registered or to be registeredpursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

٭ Not for trading but only in connectionwith the registration of ADSs pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

  

Securities registered or to be registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

 

Securities for which there is a reportingobligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None

 

Indicate the numberof outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered bythe annual report.

 

** **

Indicate by checkmark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 

Yes x      No ̈

** **

If this report isan annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

Yes  ̈      Nox

 

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and(2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

 

Yes x      No ̈

 

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data Filerequired to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

 

Yes  ̈      No ̈

 

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “acceleratedfiler and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

Largeaccelerated filer x      Acceleratedfiler  ̈      Non-acceleratedfiler  ̈

 

Indicate by checkmark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:
#### Hollis LACY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28286.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1956.

*578No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings are regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION


In connection with the Annual Report of Endologix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John McDermott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 operations of the Company.




/s/ Robert J. KristRobert J. KristChief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


Date: March 16, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1
**CERTIFICATION***
Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. § 1350, Richard P.Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of Aradigm Corporation (the “Company”), andThomas C. Chesterman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “AnnualReport”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Exchange Act, and
2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 18th day of March 2004.   /s/ RICHARD P. THOMPSON /s/ THOMAS C. CHESTERMAN   Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
*This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of Aradigm Corporation under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<Page>

32.1    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
        of Apogee Robotics, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
        Act of 2002


                            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-KSB of Apogee Robotics, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 1998 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Apogee
Robotics, Inc., 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 Company.

Dated: August 28, 2007

                                                     /s/ Michael Anthony
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Michael Anthony
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


                                                     /s/ Michael Anthony
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Michael Anthony
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
#### Larry Charles ALLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7539.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.

Decided Feb. 12, 2003.

*691Larry Charles Alley, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Larry Charles Alley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2241 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Bose *v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Alley has not made the requisite showing. *See Alley v. Waddsworth,*No. CA-01-644 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-068-CV

IN RE JANICE HAMPTON	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and relator's first amended motion for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus and first amended motion for emergency relief are denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; DAY and HOLMAN, JJ.

		HOLMAN, J. not participating.

[deEDDELIVERED MARCH 14, 2003]
EXHIBIT 32.2



PARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



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 Park Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008 (the Report), I, Steven J. Pokrak, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Steven J. PokrakSteven J. PokrakTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 28, 2008
### PD-1094&1095&1096-17 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/10/2017 2:57 PM Accepted 10/10/2017 3:02 PM DEANA WILLIAMSON

CLERK
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00356-CV

In re DT Lifestyle, L.L.C.; Cimarron Hills Development L.L.C.; Cimarron 2009, L.L.C.;

Cimarron Hills 2009, L.P.; Cimarron TX 2009, L.P.; Gary Elbogen; Daniel S. Smith; 

Matt Guley; and Chris Hill

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relators seek mandamus relief from a May 17, 2016 order in which the trial court

granted a motion to compel discovery filed by the real parties in interest, who are the plaintiffs

below. On June 8, 2016, after relators filed this original proceeding, the trial court amended its

discovery order to omit relief with regard to plaintiffs’ requests nos. 26 and 27 of their fourth

requests for production. The trial court also modified its order with respect to request No. 32.

Because the trial court amended its order to omit relief on plaintiffs’ requests 26 and 27, relators’

petition with respect to those requestsis dismissed as moot. Based on the record presented to us with

respect to the remainder of the trial court’s order, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its

discretion. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Filed: July 15, 2016

2
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                       |  | Place of Incorporation |  | Names under which doing business
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|                                      
|1.    Voice Systems Technology, Inc.   |  | Delaware               |  | Boston Communications Group     
|                                      
|2.    Cellular Express, Inc.           |  | Massachusetts          |  | Boston Communications Group     
|                                      
|3.    BCG Securities Corp.             |  | Massachusetts          |  | Boston Communications Group     
|                                      
|4.    Wireless Roaming, Inc.           |  | Delaware               |  | Boston Communications Group     
|                                      
|5.    Wireless Funding Solutions, Inc. |  | Delaware               |  | Boston Communications Group     
|                                      
|6.    BCGI Billing Services, Inc.      |  | Delaware               |  | Boston Communications Group
#### Ray Derwood SIZEMORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark WILLIAMSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6682.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 20, 2002.

Decided Aug. 30, 2002.

Ray Derwood Sizemore, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ray Derwood Sizemore appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find that Sizemore has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Sizemore v. Williamson,*No. CA-99-1105-1 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 21, 2001). 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.*