alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF STEVEN

GENE BERRY TO THE BAR OF

MARYLAND *

*

*

*

*

* IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG No. 1 8

September Term, 202 3

ORDER

Upon consideration of the p etition for r einstatement of Steven Gene Berry and Bar

Counsel ’s response to the p etition for r einstatement

, it is this 15th day of December 20 2 3

,

by the Supreme Court of Maryland

,

ORDERED that the p etition is granted ; and it is further

ORDERED that Steven Gene Berry is reinstated as a member of the Bar of

Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name Steven Gene Berry

upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this S tate and certify that fact to

the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the c lerks of all judicial tribunals in this

State.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader

Chief Justice
#### STEVLEE FACTORS, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY AND RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued September 28, 1976

Decided October 8, 1976.

Before Judges Matthews, Sbidman and Horn.

*Mr. Barnett Berr*argued the cause for appellant.

*Mr. Richard R. Width*argued the cause for respondent United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company *(Messrs. Lindabury, McCormick & Estabrook,*attorneys).

*Mr. Dennis J. Dr asco*argued the cause for respondent Reliance Insurance Company *(Messrs. Bum, Biunno & Tompkins,*attorneys).

A statement in lieu of brief was filed on behalf of the State of New Jersey by *Mr. Peter D. Pizzuto,*Deputy Attorney General *{Mr. William F. Hyland,*Attorney General, attorney).

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the Chancery Division substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Ciolino in his opinion which is reported at 136 *N. J. Super.*461.

It should be emphasized that the surety in each case under the terms of its obligation was only bound to pay those *347amounts in excess of the contract price which the State was required to pay as a result of Dean’s defaults. The retainage held by the State in each instance was part of the contract price.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10650

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HORACE A. CARAKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CR-317-R)

- - - - - - - - - -

March 19, 1997

Before Wisdom, King, and Smith, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Horace A. Caraker appeals his conviction for threatening to

take the life of or inflict bodily harm upon the President of the

United States. Caraker argues that the evidence was insufficient

to support his conviction and that the district court erred in

refusing to grant a sentence reduction for acceptance of

responsibility. After careful review of the record, we find that

the trial evidence is sufficient to support Caraker’s 
No. 96-10650

- 2 -

 

2 See United States v. Barton, 992 F.2d 66, 68 (5th

Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Howell, 719 F.2d 1258, 1260

(5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1228 (1984).

 

3 See United States v. Payne, 99 F.3d 1273, 1281 (5th

Cir. 1996).

conviction.2 Also, the district court did not clearly err by

refusing to grant Caraker a sentence reduction for acceptance of

responsibility.3

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24476]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC11-6-020]


North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 15, 2024, the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation submitted an annual report on the Find, Fix, 
Track and Compliance Exception programs, in accordance with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Orders.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 138 FERC ] 61,193 
(2012); N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 143 FERC ] 61,253 (2013); N. 
Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 148 FERC ] 61,214 (2014); N. Am. Elec. 
Reliability Corp., Docket No. RC11-6-004 (Nov. 13, 2015) (delegated 
letter order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
    The Commission encourages electronic filings of comments, protests 
and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar 
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filing is accessible online through the Commission's Home Page 
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b4d4e594844656762656e587e7b7b64797f4b6d6e7968256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3a5a6b1a0ac8d8f8a8d86b09693938c9197a385869180cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll-
free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports 
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission 
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access 
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For 
public inquiries and assistance with making filings, the public is 
encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a253a3a2a0c0f1809440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4bba4a4b492918697da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 30, 2024.

    Dated: October 16, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-24476 Filed 10-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GABRIEL ATEH OPATA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00177-CCE-1; 1:18-cv-00689-

CCE-JEP)

Submitted: September 30, 2022 Decided: November 9, 2022

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gabriel Ateh Opata, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6212 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/09/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Ateh Opata seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Opata’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion, as amended. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Opata has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Opata’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6212 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/09/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10




         FIRST AMENDMENT dated as of July 3, 2001 to Amended Agreement dated as
of the 12th day of February 2001 by and between Elektryon, Inc. (the "Company")
and Michael Holmstrom (the "Employee").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company entered into an Employment
Agreement dated November 7, 2000 which was amended by an Amended Agreement dated
as of the 12th day of February 2001 (the "Employment Agreement");

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Employment Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. The first paragraph of Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement is
deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefor:

                  "On August 2, 2001 the Employee shall be entitled to a bonus
                  of $200,000, payable immediately."


         2. As amended, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

         3. This First Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures
thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed as of the
date first above written.

                                        ELEKTRYON, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Wendell Adair
                                           ------------------
                                                Wendell Adair

                                        By: /s/ John Cavalier
                                           ------------------
                                                John Cavalier

                                        By: /s/ Curtis Olson
                                           ------------------
                                                Curtis Olson

                                        /s/ Michael Holmstrom
                                        ---------------------
                                            Michael Holmstrom
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04495**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04495\04495_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04495\04495_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04495\04495_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04495\04495_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04495\04495_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04495\04495_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04495\Certification Statement_04495.pdf Plant certification statement 04495\Supporting Documentation\04495_Gadsden Section 2_3 Question C2-31_2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04495\Supporting Documentation\04495_Gadsden Water Balance - WB1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04495\Supporting Documentation\ICR-Plant-Gadsden - Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04495\04495_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04495\04495_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04495\Supporting Documentation\04495_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Holzschuh, Respondent, vs. Webster and another, Trustees (Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company), Appellants.

January *16*

February *13, 1945.*

*425For the appellants there were briefs by *Sullivan & Lauritsen*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *W. G. Sullivan.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Genrich &*Gen-rich, attorneys, and *Herbert L. Terwilliger*of counsel, all of Wau-sau, and oral argument by *Mr. Terwilliger.*

Fairchild, J.

If there is any issue of fact raised which entitles plaintiff to a jury determination, the motion for summary judgment was properly’denied. *Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp.*(1938) 229 Wis. 348, 281 N. W. 697; *Atlas Investment Co. v. Christ*(1942), 240 Wis. 114, 117, 2 N. W. (2d) 714. The only contested issue of fact here presented is the speed of the defendants’ train. If the train was traveling at a rate of thirty-five miles an hour, and in view of the other undisputed facts, such speed was the proximate cause of the collision, plaintiff cannot be denied the right of a trial of the issue.

The facts as set forth do not bring the case into the class of those cases where the circumstances show conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action. And this is so although the passenger expressed his opinion that the driver was trying “to beat the train.” If the train were going at the legal fate of twenty miles an hour and the driver of the car at a rate of thirty-five miles per hour; and if each saw the other at a point approximately one hundred fifty to two hundred feet from the point of collision, the driver would, as a matter of calculation, have been able to pass in front of the train and cross in safety. If he were prevented from so doing by the excessive speed of the train, such speed would be a proximate 'cause of the col*426lision and the comparative negligence of the parties should be weighed by the jury. In disposing of this question, the presumption in favor of the deceased’s exercise of ordinary care, together with facts appearing on the trial, adduced through cross-examination, are to be considered. The motion was, therefore, properly denied.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18            USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Amiworld, Inc. (the            “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the nine month period ended September 30,            2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the            “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated            below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906            of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule                            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: November 14, 2007 | s/Mamoru                            Saito__________________ |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Mamoru Saito, Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
Exhibit 99.2

   Statement of CFO pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume, the Chief Financial Officer of clickNsettle.com,
Inc. (the "Issuer"), does hereby certify that:

      (iii) the Issuer's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
            December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (iv)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

Dated: February 11, 2003


                                        /s/ Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume - Vice
                                        President, Chief Financial Officer and
                                        Treasurer
Exhibit
32.1




Exhibit 32.1


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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Clear Skies Solar, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ezra J. Green, the Chairman & Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and Arthur L. Goldberg, the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company each certifies that:




1.
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  2.
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




By:
                            /s/
      Ezra J. GreenName:
                            Ezra
      J. GreenTitle:
                            Chairman
      & Chief Executive Officer
                              (Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
                            May
      15,
2009
  By:
                          /s/
      Arthur L. GoldbergName:
                          Arthur
      L. GoldbergTitle:
                          Chief
      Financial Officer
                            (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:
                          May
      15,
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          24,768
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                       389
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,031
<PP&E>                                           5,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,178)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,356
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,819
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,012
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,703
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,041
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,662
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,662
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7949
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLARENCE EDWARD HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-30-A, CA-95-1109-AM) Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before ERVIN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Edward Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. Appellant's claim that the rule of lenity should be applied in sentencing for crack cocaine offenses is without merit. See United States v. Fisher , 58 F.3d 96, 99 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3270 (U.S. Oct. 10, 1995) (No. 95-5923). His claims that the sentencing court failed to make the required factual findings were waived by his failure to assert them on direct appeal and are belied by the record. Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.1 (1976); United States v. Emanuel , 869 F.2d 795 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court found Appellant'sclaims of ineffective assistance of counsel "too conclusory to warrant further inquiry." However, Appellant may be able to particularize these claims to state a potentially meritorious ground for relief. See Cruz v. Beto , 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Coleman v. Peyton,340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965). Therefore, we affirm the district court's order denying Appellant's § 2255 motion as modified to reflect that the denial of relief is without prejudice to Appellant's ability to file a subsequent § 2255 motion to allege, in detail, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 AS MODIFIED