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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7131

PAUL WILLIAM PAINTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRAD PERRITT, Superintendent; CARMEN HENDRICKS, Physician Assistant; 

LETITIA OWEN,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LYDA OWEN,

Defendant.

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

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:16-ct-03134-BO)

Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul William Painter, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Dale McInnes, NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, 
2

Madeleine Michelle Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Paul William Painter appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Painter v. 

Perritt, No. 5:16-ct-03134-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2018). 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.

AFFIRMED
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JULY 28, 1996 AND APRIL 28, 1996 (UNAUDITED)
AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED
JULY 28, 1996 AND JULY 30, 1995 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000926295
<NAME> BOSTON RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  $1.00
<CASH>                                        $145,443
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  $46,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   $234,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              $471,906
<PP&E>                                      $2,906,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              $4,137,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       $1,995,855
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       $50,150
<OTHER-SE>                                  $8,953,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                $4,137,555
<SALES>                                     $2,798,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            $2,800,240
<CGS>                                         $659,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $2,702,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $21,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                $76,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            $95,918
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   $76,261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.02
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,316
<SECURITIES>                                    11,033
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,286
<INVENTORY>                                      2,014
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,495
<PP&E>                                          67,953
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,815
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,720
<SALES>                                         13,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,898
<CGS>                                           13,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   811
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,409
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,519
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
#### State ex rel. Marcus, Commissioner, Relator, vs. County Court and County Judge of Chippewa County, Respondents.

*December 7, 1951*

February *5, 1952.*

*534For the relator there was a brief by the *Attorney General, Stewart G. Honeck,*deputy attorney general, and *Roy G. Tulane,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Tulane.*

*Harold E. Stafford*of Chippewa Falls, for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

In the motion filed by respondents to quash the proceedings it is alleged, “that the order of said county court and of said presiding judge complained of is not a judicial order, and is purely administrative.” The *535following statement appears in the brief filed in behalf of the respondents on the motion to quash:

> “It was stated upon the oral argument that the order of Judge LaRRABee to show cause was signed ‘By the Court.’ This was purely inadvertence on the part of the busy attorney who drafted it. Perhaps, to be technically correct such phrase should have been omitted. It should have indicated that it was issued by the judge and not by the court. Is this error of sufficient magnitude to make the case one of great exigency or *publici*juris? We think not. It should be disregarded as mere surplusage. It may be that we do not appreciate the great volume of orders, judgments, and papers signed by county judges. We wish to call the court’s attention to the fact that although the order to show cause purports to be issued by the court, it is returnable before the judge and not before the court. The notice to the defendant is that of a pending matter before the judge. It is not a case where it is proposed that the county court, as distinguished from the judge thereof, proposes to assume jurisdiction to issue orders for occupational licenses.”

From the foregoing it is abundantly clear that the respondent Larrabee has correctly interpreted our opinion in *State v. Marcus*(1951), 259 Wis. 543, 49 N. W. (2d) 447, wherein it was held that sec. 85.08 (25c), Stats., confers no judicial power upon county courts, and that any order issued pursuant thereto is an administrative order and not a judicial order. We are of the opinion that the fears of relator are groundless that other county courts will misinterpret our decision in *State v. Marcus, supra,*and because of such misinterpretation will conclude that if orders made pursuant to sec. 85.08 (25c) in occupational-license matters, are issued in the name of the court, instead of the judge of such court, they thereby become judicial orders, instead of administrative orders.

It is very clear that this is not a case where the respondents deliberately sought to circumvent or disregard a decision of *536this court, and therefore it is not a proper case for the exercise of the superintending power conferred upon this court by sec. 3, art. VII of the Wisconsin constitution.

Writ denied.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                            WARRANT CERTIFICATE

     This  Amendment No. 1 to the Warrant Certificate (this "AMENDMENT") is
made and entered  into  as  of June 25, 2001, by and between FINOVA Capital
Corporation, as successor-in-interest  to  FINOVA  Technology Finance, Inc.
(the  "HOLDER")  and  Cinema  Ride,  Inc.,  a  Delaware  corporation   (the
"COMPANY").

                                    RECITALS

     A.   The Company issued to the Holder that certain Warrant Certificate
          dated December 24, 1996 (the "CERTIFICATE").

     B.   The  Certificate evidences the Holder's right to purchase 100,000
          shares of the Common Stock of the Company at an Exercise Price of
          $2.00 per share.

     c.   Capitalized  terms  not otherwise defined in this Agreement shall
          have the meanings set forth in the Certificate.

     D.   The parties desire to modify the provisions of the Certificate as
          set forth herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration  of  the  foregoing  Recitals and the
mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

     1.   AMENDMENT  TO  PARAGRAPH   1  OF  THE  CERTIFICATE.    The  first
paragraph of the Certificate is hereby amended by deleting the reference to
"$2.00" and substituting therefor "$1.00."

     2.   EFFECTIVENESS  OF  CERTIFICATE.   Except  as  expressly  provided
herein, nothing in this Amendment shall be deemed to waive or modify any of
the  provisions of the Certificate, including  the  Holder's  anti-dilution
rights.   In  the  event  of  any  conflict  between  the Certificate, this
Amendment or any other amendment or addendum thereof, the document later in
time shall prevail.

     3.   COUNTERPARTS.   This Agreement may be executed  in  two  or  more
counterparts, each of which  shall  be  deemed an original but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.





                              -1-
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the date first above written.

                              CINEMA RIDE, INC.


                              By: /s/ Mitch Francis
                                 _______________________________________
                             Its: President



                              FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION


                              By:_______________________________________

                             Its:_______________________________________

                              -2-
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Fran Ross, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) [omitted]

 

(c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: March 6,  2006 | /s/ Fran Ross                      |   |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | Fran Ross, Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 449 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 Private Calendar No. 6
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 449

                          [Report No. 106-226]


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 1999

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

                             July 12, 1999

       Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the personal 
   representative of the estate of Fred Steffens of Big Horn County, 
     Wyoming, certain land comprising the Steffens family property.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF STEFFENS FAMILY PROPERTY.

    (a) Conveyance.--Subject to subsection (b) and valid existing 
rights, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue, without 
consideration, a quitclaim deed to Marie Wambeke of Big Horn County, 
Wyoming, the personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens, to 
the land described in subsection (c).
    (b) Reservation of Minerals.--All minerals underlying the land 
described in subsection (c) are reserved to the United States.
    (c) Land Description.--The land described in this subsection is the 
parcel comprising approximately 80 acres and known as ``Farm Unit C'' 
in the E\1/2\NW\1/4\ of Section 27 in Township 57 North, Range 97 West, 
6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming.
    (d) Revocation of Withdrawal.--The withdrawal for the Shoshone 
Reclamation Project made by the Bureau of Reclamation under Secretarial 
Order dated October 21, 1913, is revoked with respect to the land 
described in subsection (c).

            Passed the Senate April 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
                                     





                                                 Private Calendar No. 6

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 449

                          [Report No. 106-226]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the personal 
   representative of the estate of Fred Steffens of Big Horn County, 
     Wyoming, certain land comprising the Steffens family property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 12, 1999

       Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed`
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7824

ANGEL SANCHEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES S. WALTERS, III, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-02-257-1)

Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Angel Sanchez seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We

have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Sanchez has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. See Sanchez v. Walters, No.

CA-02-257-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c) (2000). 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
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 164 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
BRIEFING--RECONCILIATION IN IRAQ AND THE HELSINKI II PROCESS
Committee on Foreign Affairs: On October 8, the Subcommittee on 
International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight held a 
briefing on Political Reconciliation in Iraq and the Helsinki Process: 
Lessons from South Africa and Northern Ireland. The Committee was 
briefed by the following members of the British Parliament: Lord John 
Alerdice, member House of Lords; and Jeffrey M. Donaldson, member House 
of Commons; and public witnesses.
```
*CENTAURUS
      ONE, LLC*


*260
      Franklin Street, Suite 500*


*Boston,
      MA 02110*














Mitch
      Francis


CEO


TIX
      Corp.


12001
      Ventura Place


Suite
      340


Studio
      City, CA 91604








Re:  TIX/Centaurus
      Consulting Agreement





Dear
      Mr.
      Francis:





This
      letter is intended to amend paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of that certain Letter
      Agreement dated April 23, 2007 (the “Letter Agreement”) by and between Centaurus
      One LLC (“Centaurus”) and TIX Corp. (“TIX”). The parties hereto agree that
      paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of the Letter Agreement are hereby amended by
      substituting in their entirety the following new paragraphs 3(a) and
      3(b):





“a.  A
      grant
      award of $1 million of TIX’s restricted common stock (subject


to
      Rule
      144 of the Securities Act of 1933) (the “Stock”) valued at a


preferred
      rate (approximately $4.00 per share), and net of all taxes.


Accordingly,
      at the time the TIX shares are transferred to Centaurus,


TIX
      shall
      pay Centaurus $666,666.67 by wire transfer or certified check


to
      pay
      the combined federal and state taxes on $1,666,666.67.





|a. | A
              three-year warrant, exercisable exclusively at Centaurus’s discretion,
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for
      $1,000,000 shares of TIX Stock, the exercise price of which shall be at


$5.35
      per
      share.”





If
      you
      are in agreement with the terms and conditions enumerated herein, kindly
      indicate your assent where indicated below.







Sincerely,











Fletcher
      H. Wiley


President
      and CEO





Mitch
      Francis


May
      3,
      2007


Page
      2








Acknowledged
      and Agreed:


TIX
      CORP.










By:
      ________________________


Mitch
      Francis, CEO


TIX
      Corp.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 174 (Thursday, November 13, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 RECESS UNTIL MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate stands in recess until Monday, November 17, 2008, at 12 noon.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 3 and 41 seconds p.m., recessed until 
Monday, November 17, 2008, at 12 noon.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Name of Subsidiary                                              Jurisdiction
------------------                                              ------------

1.   Interliant Acquisition Corp. ............................   Delaware
2.   Interliant Association Solutions, Inc. ..................   Delaware
3.   Interliant Consulting and Professional Services, Inc. ...   Massachusetts
       Interliant Services, Inc. .............................   Ohio
       rSP Insurance Agency, Inc. ............................   Ohio
       Soft Link Holding Corp. ...............................   Delaware
          SL Successor Corp. .................................   Minnesota
4.   Interliant International, Inc. ..........................   Delaware
       Interliant UK Holdings Limited ........................   United Kingdom
           Interliant UK Limited .............................   United Kingdom
5.   Interliant Texas, Inc. ..................................   Delaware
6.   The Jacobson Consulting Group, Inc. .....................   Delaware
7.   TP Successor Corp. ......................................   Delaware