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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DALE EUGENE ELLIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00017-RLV-DCK-1; 5:11-cv00022-RLV)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale Eugene Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dale Eugene Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Ellis has not made the requisite showing. 

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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
| – | T-NETIX,      INC.                             |
|---------|------------------------------------------------|
| – | Telequip      Labs, Inc.                       |
| – | T-NETIX      Telecommunications Services, Inc. |
| – | Evercom      Holdings, Inc.                    |
| – | Evercom,      Inc.                             |
| – | Evercom      Systems, Inc.                     |
| – | Syscon      Justice Systems, Inc.              |
| – | Modeling      Solutions LLC                    |
| – | Modeling      Solutions, LLC                   |
| – | Syscon      Justice Systems Canada Ltd.        |
| – | Syscon      Justice Systems Limited            |
| – | Syscon      Justice Systems PtyLimited         |
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50815 Summ a ry Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Jose Angel Ruiz,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:20

- CR

- 64

- 1

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Angel Ruiz has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ruiz has no t filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 13, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50815 Document: 00516128330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2021No. 20

- 50815

2 counsel’s brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for l eave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 20-50815 Document: 00516128330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2021
Exhibit 21.01

MidCarolina Financial Corporation

Schedule of Subsidiaries



|                                  |  |                             
|--------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name                              |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|MidCarolina Bank (1)              |  | North Carolina              
|                                  | 
|MidCarolina I (2)                 |  | Delaware                    
|                                  | 
|MidCarolina Trust II (3)          |  | Delaware                    
|                                  | 
|MidCarolina Investments, Inc. (4) |  | North Carolina              



|(1) | All banking offices operate using the name MidCarolina Bank
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | In 2002 the Company formed a wholly-owned Delaware statutory trust. All of the common securities of the trust are owned by the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | In 2003 the Company formed a wholly-owned Delaware statutory trust. All of the common securities of the trust are owned by the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(4) | MidCarolina Investments, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C.§ 1350)**

 

In connection with the quarterly report ofSouthWest Water Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2008 (the “Report”), I, Cheryl L. Clary, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:

 

1)              to my knowledge, theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 12, 2008 |   | /s/ CHERYL L. CLARY     |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                     |   | Cheryl L. Clary         |
|                     |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7023 

DANIEL LEVERN STALEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARION COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MR. WT, Head

Jailer; JANE DOE, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (9:05-cv-03113-PMD)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 11, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Levern Staley, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Albert Baroody,

AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, P.A., Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Levern Staley appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Staley that failure to file

timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. As the district court found, despite this warning,

Staley failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Staley has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

AFFIRMED
#### PEOPLES v. SCOTT.

No. 11467.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

July 25, 1945.

*523For former opinion, see 184 S.W.2d 161.

Park & Park, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Roy A. Scott, of Corpus Christi, for ap-pellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This Court has heretofore entered an order dismissing this cause. Peoples v. Scott, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 161.

C. M. Peoples has now filed a motion herein to recall the mandate issued and correct the order, for the reason that “demands and claims have been made and are now being asserted thereunder upon the theory that this Court upon dismissing the cause in effect affirmed the judgment and orders of the trial court inasmuch as the same were not vacated and set aside by express words in the opinion of this Court. Therefore, for the protection of the parties hereto, the mandate of this Court should be recalled and the judgment of this Court redrafted so as to preclude any misconception with reference to the judgment and orders of the court below, showing thereby that this Court did not intend merely to dismiss the appeal and thus affirm the judgment and orders of the court below, * * * *»*

In our former opinion we cited the case of King v. Fitch, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 926, which in turn cites a number of cases which discuss the legal effect of the dismissal of a cause as distinguished from the effect of the dismissal of an appeal.

The dismissal of an appeal would leave undisturbed the judgment of the lower court and thereby, in effect, affirm same without according to the appealing parties a hearing upon the merits of their appeal. International Ass’n of Machinists, Local Union No. 1488 v. Federated Ass’n of Accessory Workers, 133 Tex. 624, 130 S.W.2d 282.

The effect of an order dismissing the cause is to vacate the judgment appealed from and dismiss the cause from the docket of the trial court. University Interscholastic League v. Sims, 133 Tex. 605, 131 S.W.2d 94.

Our order heretofore entered clearly decrees that the “cause be, and it is hereby dismissed.”

We perceive no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the wording of this order and consequently overrule the motion.

Motion overruled.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5507 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on S–N–ALKYL–ANILIN. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on S–N–ALKYL– 

ANILIN. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. S–N–ALKYL–ANILIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-ethyl-N-[(1S)-2-methoxy1-methylethyl]-6-methylBenzenamine (S–N– 

ALKYL–ANILIN) (CAS 

No. 118604–70–9) ( provided for in subheading 

2921.42.90) ....................... 2.8% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5507 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.14

                                    AMENDMENT


         This amendment to the Employment Agreement dated September 12, 1995,
between The Perkin-Elmer Corporation (now named PE Corporation (NY)) (the
"Company") and Tony L. White ("Executive") (the "Agreement") is made this 17th
day of August, 2001.

         WHEREAS, Company and Executive mutually desire to modify section 6(d)
and Exhibit A of the Agreement, particularly in view of the need to clarify the
application of certain provisions of the pension plans involved under such
Agreement.

        NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

         1.       Section 6(d) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

                  (d)      Supplemental Pension Benefit. It is understood that
                           Executive has been employed by his prior employer for
                           a period of twenty-six years ("Prior Service
                           Period"). In addition to receiving credit under the
                           Company's qualified defined benefit plan ("Pension
                           Plan") and the Company's non-qualified Excess Benefit
                           Plan (the "Non-Qualified Plan") for Executive's
                           service with the Company under the terms of this
                           Agreement, the Company shall pay Executive a special
                           supplemental pension benefit equal to the amount
                           which he would receive under the Pension Plan and
                           Non-Qualified Plan if Executive were credited with
                           his Prior Service Period under the Pension Plan and
                           the Non-Qualified Plan. Executive's benefit hereunder
                           shall be calculated in the manner set forth in
                           Exhibit A hereto, and in the case of retirement
                           before age 65 shall be based on Executive's prior
                           employer's pension plan early retirement methodology.
                           Any benefits payable to Executive hereunder shall be
                           reduced by $111,528 per year, and shall also be
                           reduced by any amounts paid to Executive under the
                           Pension Plan or the Non-Qualified Plan.

         2.       Exhibit A to the Agreement is replaced by Exhibit A hereto.

         3.       In all other respects the Agreement is unmodified and remains
                  in full force and effect.


         PE CORPORATION (NY)                           TONY L. WHITE

         By  /s/ Barbara J. Kerr                       /s/  Tony L. White
             -------------------------------           -------------------------
             Barbara J. Kerr
             Vice President, Human Resources

             Acknowledged:

             /s/  William B. Sawch
             -------------------------------
             William B. Sawch
             Senior Vice President and
                General Counsel
Exhibit 31.1

 

Certification Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 as adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Alan Joslyn, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Oragenics, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

|                | /s/ Alan Joslyn                                                           |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                | Alan Joslyn                                                               |
| April 29, 2019 | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
#### Bo Young Choi, Respondent, v Sei Young Choi, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered July 12, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant’s motion to set aside and vacate a stipulation of settlement, and an order of the same court and Justice, *218entered December 5, 1989, which, *inter alia,*appointed plaintiff the receiver of certain property with directions to sell said property and distribute the proceeds pursuant to the stipulation of settlement and court order, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

In this divorce action commenced by plaintiff, the primary marital assets consisted of two dry-cleaning businesses. Both establishments were held in defendant’s name alone. Pursuant to the parties’ own arrangement during the marriage, defendant managed the 86th Street store and plaintiff managed the more profitable 23rd Street store. After commencement of this divorce action, defendant became increasingly abusive of plaintiff and threatened to deprive her of rights in the 23rd Street store. Plaintiff sought and obtained injunctive relief, based, in part, upon evidence of defendant’s threats, and indications that defendant was attempting to sell the 23rd Street store, had fired or alienated employees, and had diminished the business’s goodwill.

Under these circumstances, plaintiff made the requisite showing of entitlement to injunctive relief *(see generally, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso,*75 NY2d 860, 862). The court correctly restrained defendant from transferring or disposing of the marital asset over which he retained exclusive control, or being present at the premises to disrupt or otherwise diminish its value. *(Frankel v Frankel,*150 AD2d 520.)

The court properly denied defendant’s application to set aside and vacate the stipulation of settlement, which was entered at a time when defendant, represented by counsel, had actively participated in negotiations and acknowledged his understanding of its terms and conditions, as well as his consent. Moreover, he obtained a buyout of plaintiff’s rights in the premises at a price of $5,000 less than his original offer. *(See generally, Golfinopoulos v Golfinopoulos,*144 AD2d 537, 538, *lv dismissed.*74 NY2d 793.) Stipulations of settlement are favored means of resolving disputes, which should not lightly be cast aside upon conclusory and unsupported allegations of duress. *(Sanders v Copley,*151 AD2d 350, 352.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|West Virginia Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|West Virginia Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 14     | 0      | 0      | 60     | 4      | 4      | 6      | 1      | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25759]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Open Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting.

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: October 30, 2000--November 1, 2000.
    Time of Meeting: 0730--1700.
    Place: Fort Benning, Georgia (Classroom Six in the Infantry 
Hall).
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's (ASB) will hold their annual 
Fall Membership meeting at Fort Benning. This meeting will be open 
to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or 
file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner 
permitted by the committee. For further information, please contact 
Mr. Everett R. Gooch at (703) 604-7479.

Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 00-25759 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M