alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TrueYou.Com Inc.
                            501 Merritt 7, 5th Floor
                           Norwalk, Connecticut 06851

                                                        December 22, 2006

Senior Subordinated Lenders of TrueYou.Com Inc.
set forth below

Gentlemen:

         Concurrently  herewith we are issuing to you warrants (the  "Warrants")
to purchase the Common Stock of TrueYou.Com Inc.

         As soon as  practicable  after the date hereof,  TrueYou  shall use its
best efforts to cause its Certificate of Incorporation to be amended to increase
the number of authorized  shares of TrueYou Common Stock to such number as shall
be sufficient to permit the exercise in full of the Warrants  (such amount,  the
"Share  Amount") and shall  thereupon  reserve for issuance upon exercise of the
Warrants,  that number of authorized  shares of TrueYou Common Stock which shall
be required for such purpose.  In the event that any of you shall notify TrueYou
at any time prior to the  effective  date of such  amendment  that you desire to
exercise the Warrants  prior to such  effective  date,  TrueYou shall  thereupon
promptly  issue  to you,  in  exchange  for the  Warrants,  substitute  warrants
exercisable  to  purchase  that  number of shares  of its  Series B  Convertible
Preferred Stock that are , upon  authorization of the Share Amount,  immediately
convertible  into the number of shares of TrueYou  Common  Stock that would then
have been issuable upon exercise of the Warrants in full if the  Certificate  of
Incorporation of TrueYou had then provided for sufficient  authorized  shares of
TrueYou  Common  Stock  to  satisfy  such  exercise,  and  otherwise  containing
substantially the same terms and provisions as the Warrants.

         Please confirm our agreements below.

                                                Very truly yours,

                                                TrueYou.Com Inc.

                                                By:
                                                   -----------------------------
Subordinated Lenders

KLINGER INVESTMENTS LLC

By:
   ---------------------------------
     Name:
     Title:

<PAGE>

VICIS CAPITAL MASTER FUND LLC

By:
   ---------------------------------


------------------------------------
         Andrew D. Lipman


------------------------------------
         Richard Rakowski


------------------------------------
         Gerard DeBiasi


------------------------------------
         James Benedict


------------------------------------
         Dan Richardson


------------------------------------
         Amal Devani


------------------------------------
         Tom McCauley


------------------------------------
         John Brugmann


                                        2
* 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

June 2, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10464

Summary Calendar

FAUSTINO RAMOS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT DALLAS TX; U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION; U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, WASHINGTON, D.C.,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:05-CV-476)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Faustino Ramos appeals the denial of a temporary restraining

order (TRO), seeking to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security,

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from detaining him

and removing him from the United States pending a decision on his

adjustment-of-status application. Although his notice of appeal

states he is also appealing the denial of his petition for a writ
2

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the district court did not

rule on that petition. Therefore, only the TRO-denial is at issue.

We lack jurisdiction over a TRO-denial because the ruling does

not qualify as an “injunction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir.) (“[I]t is well

settled that this court has no appellate jurisdiction over the

denial of an application for a temporary restraining order”.)

(citing In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990)), cert.

denied, 527 U.S. 1018 (1999). On the other hand, the denial of a

preliminary injunction is ordinarily appealable immediately. See

Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991).

Construing the district court’s order as the denial of a

preliminary injunction, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), the

motion was properly denied. See United States v. Wood, 295 F.2d

772, 778 (5th Cir. 1961) (construing the denial of a TRO as a final

order for appealability purposes in order to preserve determination

of the parties’ substantial rights), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 850

(1962).

An injunction-denial will be reversed only on showing the

district court abused its discretion. Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at

1107. As the district court reasoned in denying relief, Ramos did

not show a substantial threat that failure to enjoin his detention

would result in irreparable injury. Nor did he show a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, brought under 28
3

U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention and removal as unlawful.

Cf. Cardoso v. Reno, 216 F.3d 512, 516-17 (5th Cir. 2000)

(affirming dismissal of action for lack of jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(g) by plaintiff subject to removal order and seeking

adjustment of status to avoid removal order).

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2192 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2192

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                                 An Act

 
 To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the 
 means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of 
reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard 
who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a 
          homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard and Reservist Debt 
Relief Extension Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS DEBT RELIEF AMENDMENT.
    Section 4(b) of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act 
of 2008 (Public Law 110-438; 122 Stat. 5000) is amended by striking 
``3-year'' and inserting ``7-year''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 March 3, 2017

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2017

154898(57)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 154898

v COA: 333917

Leelanau CC: 15-001879-FC; 

15-001880-FC

WILLIAM MICHAEL KASBEN, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on January 30, 2017, is accepted 

for filing.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           (Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
                             15 U.S.C. Section 78m)



I, Deborah F. McLeod, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Chestatee Bancshares,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this 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 of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
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. 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; and
         c. 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing similar functions):

         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; and
         b. 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.


Date:    August 13, 2007        BY: /s/ Deborah F. McLeod
         ---------------            --------------------------------------------
                                    Deborah F. McLeod, CFO and Treasurer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


<PAGE>
|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)           
|View History: Annual                                     
|View History: Annual                                     
|View History:                                            
|                                                         
|No chart available.                                      
|No chart available.                                      
|                                                         
|                                                         
|Mississippi Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7044

GEORGE FREDERICK HATFIELD, II,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,

District Judge. (CA-04-154; CR-03-56)

Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Frederick Hatfield, II, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard

Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Frederick Hatfield, II, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hatfield has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of

counsel, 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
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
      ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      "Report") by Gold Horse International, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, Liankuan
      Yang, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify
      that:




1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
                and




2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of
                Registrant.




/s/ Liankuan
                YangName:
                Liankuan YangTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer




Dated:
      May 20, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
      provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 858

- CR

Style: Thurston Rickey

- Lee Davis v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : March 12 , 201 9

Type of motion: Notice of Acknowledgement of S ubstitution of C ounsel

Part y filing motion: Appell ant ’s appointed counsel, Natalie Lynn Schultz, and r etained

Counsel, Garrick A. Farria

Document to be filed: N otice to pro se appellant

Is appeal accelerated? No

.

Ordered that motion i s :

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant’s appointed counsel’s notice of acknowledgement of substitution of counsel,

construed with retained counsel’s prior notice of appearance as a motion to substitute

counsel, is granted because they were signed by both new and withdrawing counsel.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5 (d). Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to remove

Natalie Lynn Schultz, as counsel for appellant and to designate Garrick A. Farria as

lead counsel

. Withdrawing c ounsel Schultz is ordered to mail a copy of the no ti ce

and this order to the pro se appellant via certified and first

- class mail and file notice

with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order. See id. 6.5(b), (d).

Judge ’ s signature:

___

/s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

_______

x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date:

__ March 19, 2019

_______
#### 179th Street Car Service, Inc., Appellant, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered November 16, 1989, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiff, a private car-for-hire service, challenges the licensing of for-*256hire vehicles by defendant Taxi and Limousine Commission under regulations adopted April 7, 1987 pursuant to Local Laws, 1986, No. 76 of the City of New York (eff. Dec. 22, 1986) on the ground that the licensing was undertaken without appropriate environmental review under State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL 8-0101 *et seqj.*

Although styled as an action seeking injunctive relief, the four-month Statute of Limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings applies *(Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany,*70 NY2d 193) and bans maintenance of this action.

Moreover, on April 27, 1989, defendant Taxi and Limousine Commission issued a negative declaration, finding that implementation of the licensing regulations would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, thus rendering this action moot. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
# lamiiNimioiN i A n Employe e Owno d Compan y Jame s E . McGlothli n / ; A ; /

- j • Chief R.vtculiv

e O/ficc i . i ' i t •J ^ Augus t 18 . 30i 0 Aloh aLe y Actin g Associat e Director , X-5 0 U.S . Depai'tmen l o f

Transponaiio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E WS6-31 0 Washinglon , D C 2059 0 Ms . Ley : Quintro n System s ha s learne dther e i s consideratio n bein g give n t o allo w adirec t /ligh t rout e betwee n Sant aMari aan dDenver . W e woul dlik e t o provid e yo u avery stron g support recommendatio n fo

r approva l o f

thi s ne w route . Quintro n doe s busines s wit h man y Governmen t

an dDefens e location s aroun dth e country . Severa l o f thes e ar e i n Colorado , s o adirec t rout e t o Denve r

woul db e avaluabl e assis t t o ou r interaction s i n tha t region . I n addition , Denve r i s amajo r

hu b airpor

t that woul dprovid e eas y connection s eastwar dt o mos t

o f ou r othe r majo r custome r

locations . Similarly , ai r

trave l int o ou r

Centra l Coas t

regio n woul dbenefi t

greatl y fro mthi s ne w route . Beyon dcommercia l passengers , ther e i s constan t andconsiderabl e Militar y traffi c int o ou r regio n l o suppor t

Vandenber g AF B whic h muc h o f i t comin g Iro mth e Colorad o are aa s well . Thi s optiona l rout e woul dno t

onl y provid e mor e efficient trave l for

al l passenger s but

als o promot e a healthie r competitiv e environmen t a s well , contributin g t o saving s fo r citizen s an dGovernmen t Agencie s alike . I n short , w e believ e approva l o f thi s additiona l ai r

rout e to/fro mSant aMari aha s significan t positiv e impact s fo

r ou r cit y an dregion . W

e reques t youi

- favorabl e consideration . Very trul y yours ,

Jame s E . McGlothli n
|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)       
|View History: Annual                                 
|View History: Annual                                 
|View History:                                        
|                                                     
|Montana Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                     
|                                                     
|Montana Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,875  | 3,130  | 2,988  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective
Amendment No. 51 to Registration Statement Amendment No. 033-13179
on Form N-1A of our report dated February 22, 2017, relating to the
financial statements and financial highlights of Pioneer U.S.
Government Money Market Fund (the "Fund"), a portfolio of Pioneer
Money Market Trust, appearing in the Annual Report on Form N-CSR
of the Fund for the year ended December 31, 2016. We also consent
to the references to us under the headings "Financial Highlights"
in the Prospectus and "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm"
and "Financial Statements" in the Statement of Additional
Information, which are part of such Registration Statement.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 24, 2017
**Exhibit 3.1**

****