alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2451** 

MALCOLM LEE ARMES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 03315

- ELH )

Submitted : May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, PC, Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. John F

. Breads, Jr., Director of Legal Services, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE TRUST, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Lee Armes appeals from the district court ’ s order awarding summary judgment to the Defendant on his employment and related claims . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Armes v. Talbot Cnty

. , M d. , No. 1:11

- cv - 03315

- ELH (D. Md. Nov. 19, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### VIRGINIA CLARK *vs.*GOOLD HOYT, ET AL.

In settling the accounts of a Trustee, he should be allowed, no only reasonable commissions, but also actual expenses.

When the Master, in his report, allowed the Trustee nothing for his expenses, but a greater amount of commissions than had been stipulated by the parties, if, upon the whole, the Trustee receives no more than a fair compensation, the Court will not disturb the report.

*223This cause came on to be heard upon exceptions to the Master’s report on the accounts of the Trustee. It is unnecessary to state any of the exceptions, as they embrace merely matters of fact; except the third, upon which the Court delivered its opinion.

*B. F. Moore*for the plaintiff.

Heath, *Ehringhaus, Jordan*and *Smith*for the defendant.

RuffiN, C. J.

The third exception of the plaintiff to that account, and both of the exceptions of the defendant, Hoyt, thereto, relate to the same matter, and maybe considered together. The deeds of trust mentioned in the pleadings stipulate, that the Trustee shall have a commission of five per cent, on both sides of his account, and also his reasonable expenses in the execution of the trusts. The Master all ows five per cent, on the receipts, and seven and a half per cent, on the sum of 17,186 40, as disbursements; and makes no allowance for expenses. He reports that the Trustee'pt'oduced and claimed a large amount for expenses, amounting to several hundred dollars, which he rejected, on the ground of its unreasonableness ; and that, instead of making any allowance on that score, he added two and a half per cent.: and the defendant, Hoyt, excepts, first, because allowances were not made for his loss of time, personal services, and expenses ; and secondly, because insufficient commissions were allowed him. The Trustee is not entitled to compensation for his time and services, beyond the commissions : because the commissions constitute such compensation ; and in this case the parties fixed the rate, which, indeed, appears to the Court to be fully adequate.

To his expenses he was also entitled : and it would have been most proper that the Master should have made an allowance for them specifically. But, upon computation, it is found, that the two and a half per cent, on the dis*224bursements, which the Master gives for the expenses,’ amounts to about #180; and, upon looking through the accounts, and considering the nature of the defendant’s duties, as stated in the testimony, it appears to the Court that would have been a reasonable allowance for his expenses. The Court will not, therefore, distuib the account — since the error is merely in form, and substantial justice has been done. All those exceptions are over ruled.

The Court sees no reason to differ from the Trustee as to the allowance of commissions on the administration account of the defendant, James S. Clark: and, therefore, the exceptions of both the plaintiffs and the defendant thereto are over-ruled.

Per CuRiAin. Decree accordingly.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.20    
  


 
 

PROMISSORY NOTE    
  



	Amount $25,000.00	 	August 23, 2001





    For
value received, the undersigned, GeoPetro Resources Company ("Payor"), hereby promises to pay on demand to Stuart J. Doshi ("Holder") the principal sum of Twenty Five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000.00) with interest from August 23, 2001 at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum, payable upon repayment of the loan. 



	Signed by:
 GeoPetro Resources Company	 	 
	

 J. Chris Steinhauser

Chief Financial Officer	
 	

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.20


PROMISSORY NOTE
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6813** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KENNY MONTANA HOLTON, a/k/a K.G. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 4:98

- cr - 00009

- H

- 6 )

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges , HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Kenny Montana Holton , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Raleigh, N orth C arolina , for Appellee
. Unpublish ed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenny Montana Holton appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582 (c) (2006) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Holton , No. 4:98

- cr 00009

- H

- 6 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2013)
. We deny Holton’s motion for clarification. * We di spense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

* We note that Holton has filed in the district court a new motion for reduction of sentence. The district court’s ruling on that motion is not presently before the court.
* 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

May 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20863

Summary Calendar

 

RICHARD SANCHEZ; RICHARD SANCHEZ, as next friend of A S

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC; ET AL

Defendants

ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC

Defendants-Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Souther District of Texas, Houston

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1820

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Sanchez appeals the district

court’s order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion for summary

judgment. We review summary judgments de novo and apply the same

standard as the district court. Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc.,

398 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 2005).

Appellant filed suit in this case because his severely
disabled ten-year-old child became seriously ill. He attributed

his child’s illness to the feeding tube food manufactured by

Appellee Abbott Laboratories Inc. and shipped by Appellee Medline

Industries Inc. In granting the motion to dismiss, the district

court found that proximate causation had not been shown between

any potential contamination or spoilage of the food and the

child’s subsequent illness. Appellant’s brief advances several

arguments regarding what he argues were improper exclusions of

witness testimony and an affidavit by the district court. The

district court concluded, though, that even if the evidence had

been admitted, it still failed to show proximate causation of the

child’s illness.

Appellant’s brief concerns itself with admission of the

testimony and the affidavit and does not meaningfully contest the

independent causation ground for summary judgment. See FED. R.

APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain

appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations

to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant

relies.”). We thus deem the argument to be conceded. See Local

Union No. 898 of the Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. XL Elec.,

Inc., 380 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2004) (“The Union has not made

any argument challenging the merits of the district court’s

ultimate conclusion that the Agreement was properly terminated. 

The Union thus waived any argument along those lines . . . .”);

Green v. State Bar, 27 F.3d 1083, 1089 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A party
who inadequately briefs an issue is considered to have abandoned

the claim.”). Therefore, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

FG SRC, LLC,

Appellant

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1993

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

01604.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JAY P. KESAN, DiMuroGinsberg, PC-DGKey IP Group, 

Tysons Corner, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by CECIL E. KEY; ALFONSO CHAN, ARI RAFILSON, Shore 

Chan DePumpo LLP, Dallas, TX.

 CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by RICHARD 

ALAN CEDEROTH; SCOTT BORDER, TYLER J. DOMINO, JOSEPH 

A. MICALLEF, Washington, DC.

 ______________________

Case: 20-1993 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2021
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

May 6, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1993 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2021
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Sandra H. Stephens, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        August 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra H. Stephens   Sandra H. Stephens   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/  John M. CurtisMay 17, 2011
    John M. CurtisPresident and Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Vangent and will be retained
by Vangent and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEEC, INC.
UANUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      22,398,976
<SECURITIES>                                 5,021,501
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,234,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (218,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,792,551
<PP&E>                                       1,629,656
<DEPRECIATION>                               (518,818)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,293,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,869,869
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,070
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,311,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,293,912
<SALES>                                      1,822,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,735,738
<CGS>                                          101,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,203,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,417,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,286
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,167,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (265,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,902,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,902,799)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)


</TABLE>
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 559

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th

Street in Austin, Texas, as the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 559 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal Building located at 300 East 8th Street

3 in Austin, Texas, shall be known and designated as the

4 ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

9 a reference to the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

Passed the Senate June 16, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 559

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 300

‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.East 8th Street in Austin, Texas, as the ‘‘J.J.
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

25)IV-E-13 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:27 AM Sheet 25 of 105 
P.2 

A-83-27 

IV-E-13 

CONTACT REPORT 

Date TA*I y?P7 Originator _ 

CONTACT BY: TELEPHONE ^ MEETING D Other 

NAME,TITLE 4ORGANIZATION £ b £^, 5 ,^,0/2 . ftoc^S 6^,^ Z 

TY2o C (T1 

'u/W 

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER 

P-0. &QX 3"7f 

?QCP-^-13-3^3 / fcxecie*, T x 7900 7 

PURPOSE OR SUBJECT (Give project number if appropriate) 

SUMMARY 

/3V C/4ev/eo/0( A^D T /rVf5 rHt e/N°Ac TY jt. T&ZAT SO;ddo bfoi 

Or ATMOS PtfefLiC- /£c3«7KlJ/^. rHiLuPS C W /W& S6cJ gt r A CJ. 3 2 

•bocPo/L tft* ^(,/rr ) P^jc r F£o/w /| a Va ^<_< ^ Fen. trite *jN,r. 

/S D€^£i > ro T^tAT p ^ ^,r* 0P ^ J i Y 7 ;Q y 0Cfu - ^ J TTf/j 

£<rPi/0£Y^ S<*5 WOT- /Vl/HZKtT TTtt ^'ZoDJcr. /Z*T>fetf 77 | £ y- /-<--£-£ rTf f 

0ALUML<T r^o-fcjcrs. Mfc "^// i s w /uo /tfce-fc /=*£ /VCL^ I 70 Af/f<2/c^ 

THz Lo^-^cr-vZ £eS"/ou^-M ffir,)*.(_€• h f\5 ft i! /K^tfArt y ujt'2 'A/ A 

Pfi-or\r/rALt MAAJ/JC(1. ' 

CD 

8 ACTION 

Distribution:
Exhibit
32.2









CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Robert
Mathews, certify to my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Viking Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such annual report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Viking Systems,
Inc.






Date:
      April 15, 2009
            /s/ Robert
      MathewsRobert
      MathewsChief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE LORONIX
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FROM
ITS 10-KSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,822,693<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,622,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                   138,533
<INVENTORY>                                  1,962,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,901,904
<PP&E>                                       5,621,642
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,101,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,342,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,030,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,647
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,645,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,342,021
<SALES>                                      3,888,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,888,545
<CGS>                                        2,069,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,473,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (45,758)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,555,964)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,556,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,556,764)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY HAS TWO OUTSTANDING LETTERS OF CREDIT COLLATORALIZED BY A
COMBINATION OF CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT AND CASH TOTALING APPROXIMATELY
$100,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>