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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1593

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (4:06-cv-00143-F)

Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
1

Willis filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied

on March 27, 2007. Using either November 21, 2006, or March 27,

2007, Willis’ appeal is untimely.

2We note that in granting in forma pauperis status on appeal,

the district court did not require Willis to fully comply with the

provisions of our March 17, 1997, injunction order.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis appeals the district court’s order

granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Willis’ action filed

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and alleging various constitutional

violations. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on November 21, 2006.1 The notice of appeal was filed on May 31,

2007. Because Willis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal.2 We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 3 -

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

h1216 

# Order

Clerk 

### December 23, 2013

147517

STANLEY G. DENHOF,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 147517

AGC: 0763

- 13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and

relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested

relie f.
STATE OF TENNESSEE RTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

October4, 2012 Division ofAir Pollution Control 9th Floor, L&C Annex

401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243-1531
Certified Mail# 7011 0110 0000 4004 8131 Return Receipt Requested
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center, 12th Floor 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Re: Request for Parallel Review, Pre

-Hearing Draft Revisions to TAPCR Chapter 1200-03-09 to Incorporate Changes to the PM2.5 Increments Dear Ms. Fleming: The Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control requests that the U.S. EPA grant conditional approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(Il), and 110(a)(2)0J of the Clean Air Act (CAA) related to the 1997 PMzs, 2006 PMz
.s, 2008 8-Hour Ozone and 2008 Lead National AmbientAir Quality Standards pursuantto section 110 ofthe CAA. I am pleased to submita draft ofthe proposed revisions to TAPCR Chapter 1200-03-09 to incorporate the requirements ofthe Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD), pursuantto sections 163 and 166 ofthe CAA for "Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)

- Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SJLs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)" published in the Federal RegisterOctober 20, 2010. Public notice ofthe proposed revisions will be published in the TennesseeAdministrativeRegisteron October**, 2012. We plan to submit a final version ofthis draft request as soon as possible after considering the public comments. The public comment period will begin no later than November 4, 2012, and will run until the public hearing date of December4, 2012. We intend to submitthe final plan to EPA in December 2012 following approval by the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board, and we requestthat EPA parallel process this requestas we move through the commentperiod. If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please contact me at (615) 532-0525 or Lacey Hardin at (615) 532-0545.

# 1~1~ fl A Barry R. Stephens, P
. E. 

# f'\ Director, Division ofAir Pollution Control BRS/LJH Enclosure
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This document is being issued under the authority of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing 
notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for 
Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the 
Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada 
and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy Between the United States of America and the European Atomic 
Energy Community.

DATES: This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 
August 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katie Strangis, Office of 
Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-8623 or email: 
Katie.Strangis@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This subsequent arrangement concerns the 
retransfer of 295,858 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride 
(UF6) (67.6% U), 200,000 kg of which is uranium, from Cameco 
Corporation (Cameco) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to Urenco Ltd. 
(URENCO) in Almelo, The Netherlands. The material, which is currently 
located at Cameco in Port Hope, Ontario, will be used for toll 
enrichment by URENCO at its facility in Almelo, The Netherlands. The 
material was originally obtained by Cameco from Power Resources, Inc., 
Cameco Resources-Crowe Butte Operation, and White Mesa Mill pursuant to 
export license XSOU8798.
    In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement 
concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin 
will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United 
States of America.

    Dated: June 23, 2014.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anne M. Harrington,
Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2014-16933 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Exhibit 99.2

                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 I-trax, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Tomaro,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant toss.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 result of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Anthony Tomaro
-------------------
Anthony Tomaro, CPA
Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03668]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research 
Special Emphasis Panel: NINR R25 Applications ZNR1 REV N(06) Review 
Meeting.
    Date: March 12, 2024.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Nursing, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 4th 
Floor, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Nisan Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NIDCR, NIH, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard, Suite 668, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2405, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85ebecf6e4ebabe7ede4f1f1e4e6ede4f7fcfce4c5ebecedabe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="452b2c36242b6b272d24313124262d24373c3c24052b2c2d6b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 16, 2024.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03668 Filed 2-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****, D.C.****  20549**

 

**Form10-K**

(MarkOne)

[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number0-13261

 

**SHELTER PROPERTIESVI**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

Registrant's telephonenumber, including area code (864) 239-1000

 

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

 

None

 

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

 

Unitsof Limited Partnership Interest

(Titleof class)

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (229.405of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the bestof the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statementsincorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to thisForm 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
#### E. A. BAILEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28706.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 2, 1957.

*932No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

León B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the^State.

PER CURIAM.

Driving while intoxicated upon a public highway is the offense, with punishment assessed at sixty days in jail.

. .The. record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception, without which nothing is presented fpr review.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1843 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 207
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1843

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

                            October 19, 2011

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber 
                        Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JOHN PANGELINAN GERBER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, shall be known and 
designated as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John 
Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 207

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1843

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 19, 2011

                       Reported without amendment
```
**EXHIBIT 24.5**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, Paul Oldham and Kerry Mustoe, and eachof them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 29, 2008 and any andall amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agentsand each of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: May 15, 2008.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00012-CR

____________________

SHAUN MICHAEL ZILLS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 410th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-06-06950-CR

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On November 21, 2014, the trial court sentenced Shaun Michael Zills on a 

conviction for fraudulent use of identifying information. Zills filed a notice of 

appeal on January 2, 2015. The trial court signed a certification in which the court 

certified that this is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s 

certification to the Court of Appeals. On January 9, 2015, we notified the parties 

that we would dismiss the appeal unless the appellant established grounds for 
2

continuing the appeal. No response has been filed. Because the trial court’s 

certification shows the defendant does not have the right of appeal, we must 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

 

Submitted on February 10, 2015

Opinion Delivered February 11, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
#### George L. VLASSIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28068.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1956.

George G. Walker, Van Horn, for appellant.

H. D. Glover, County Atty., Pecos, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful practice of medicine; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.

One Socorra Renteria testified that sometime prior to the date charged in the information she had carried her child to the appellant for treatment and that he had cured the child. She stated that thereafter she found that she was expecting another child, that she made several visits to the appellant, and that he gave her a “shot” each time, and that she thereafter had a miscarriage. She testified that she was charged $3.00 for each visit to the appellant.

It was established that the appellant had not registered a license to practice medicine with the district clerk of the county as required by law.

The State was permitted to prove, over the objection of the appellant, that the appellant had treated two other residents of Reeves County for pay shortly before the day charged in the indictment. Each of these witnesses referred to the appellant as a doctor.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

Appellant in his brief questions the sufficiency of the information. as a pleading. The claimed defects are not such as would in the absence of an exception or motion to quash vitiate it. A motion to quash is contained in the transcript but does not show that it was ever presented to the trial court or that he acted on such motion.

By bill of exception No. 1 appellant complains of the proof that the appellant treat*935ed others for pay as well as the person charged in the information.

Recently, in De Hay v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 262, 254 S.W.2d 513, 514, we said:

> “There was evidence that appellant had treated another woman for a disease and disorder, and had held himself out to others as a practitioner of medicine.”

We have concluded that proof that the accused had treated others was admissible on the issue of whether or not he was engaged in the practice of medicine.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.60



                          AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT


         AMENDMENT made this 1st day of July, 1998, by and between Hadco
Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation with a usual place of business in
Salem, New Hampshire (hereinafter the "Company"), and Andrew E. Lietz, of Rye,
New Hampshire (hereinafter the "Optionee"), to the Option Agreement between the
parties dated April 8, 1998 in which the Optionee was granted options for Fifty
Thousand (50,000) shares of Hadco Corporation Common Stock.

         WHEREAS, both parties consider the Optionee's stock option arrangements
with the Company to be an integral part of his compensation package; and

         WHEREAS, the Company has recently reviewed compensation arrangements
with its top management; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Optionee have agreed upon a revised
provision with respect to the retirement of the Optionee.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other mutual
covenants contained herein, it is agreed between the parties as follows:

         1.       To strike Section 2(c)(1) and substitute therefor new Section
2(c)(1) as follows: "Any unvested or unexercised option granted hereunder shall
terminate and become void at midnight on the thirtieth (30th) day after the
Optionee's employment with the Company is terminated for any reason other than
disability, death, or retirement after age 61, but in no event may the option be
exercised later than the specified expiration date of the option."


<PAGE>   2

         2.       To strike Section 2(c)(3) and substitute therefor new Section
2(c)(3) as follows: "In the event the employment of the Optionee terminates by
reason of retirement from the Company after Optionee has reached age 61, any
option granted hereunder shall continue to vest and become exercisable on the
same schedule as set forth in Section 2(a) and shall expire on the same date as
provided in Section 2(b) hereof."

         3.       Except as specifically set forth herein, the original terms
and provisions of the Option Agreement of April 8, 1998 (unless otherwise
changed or amended by operation of amendment of the November 29, 1995 Hadco
Stock Option Plan) between the parties are hereby ratified and confirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the
date first above written.




                                        Hadco Corporation





/s/ Patricia Randall                        By: /s/ Horace H. Irvine II
--------------------------------            ------------------------------------
Witness


/s/ James C. Hamilton                       By: /s/ Andrew E. Lietz
--------------------------------            ------------------------------------
Witness                                     Andrew E. Lietz









                                       2