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

**No. 14**  **- 1142** 

SPENCER N. PENN, Plaintiff

– Appellant,

v. METER SHOP , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 03468

- JFM )

Submitted : August 20, 2014 Decided: August 27, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Spencer N. Penn, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Spencer N. Penn appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order
. We have reviewe d the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Penn v. Meter Shop , No. 1:13

- cv 03468

- JFM (D. Md. Jan. 30, 2014) . 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-2310

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

AGM MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC.,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this Court, issued on November 8, 2006, should

be amended as follows:

On page 4, line 4, replace "Phillip Morris, Inc." with

Philip Morris, Inc.". 

On page 6, last line of 1st paragraph, "E.g." should be

underlined.

On page 9, lines 4 and 5 of footnote 4, replace "(Dist. Ct.

App. Fla. 2001)" with "(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)".

On page 10, line 1, top of page, insert "a" between "also" and

"good".
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 13, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President), 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

                    1.                     *Scott Warren Cooper,*                     Garnett, Kansas; to retain voting shares of Garnett Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Patriots Bank, both in Garnett, Kansas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-06923 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Joseph Y.Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that,to the best of his knowledge:**1.**The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2006 to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “***Annual Report***”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and**2.**The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operationsof the Company for the periods covered by the Annual Report.**In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 15th day of September, 2006.   /s/ Joseph Y. Liu   Joseph Y. Liu  Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before orafter the date of theForm 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
DENY and Opinion Filed October 18 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00853 - CV IN RE BRADLEY HUBBAR D, M.D. AND DALLAS P LASTIC SURGERY INSTITUTE , Relator s O riginal Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 19 - 03134 - B MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers In this original proceeding, relators seek man damus relief from the trial court’s order striking their retained medical expert but allowing him to testify as a
non - retained, treating physician. They complain that the order is vague and that the trial court abused its discretion by striking their retai ned expert. Relators further ask us to compel the court to rule on their motion for leave to designate a replacement retained expert. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator s to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the y lack an adequate remedy by appeal
. In re Prudential Ins. Co
. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).– 2

–

After reviewing the petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator s ha ve failed to demonstrate their entitlement to m andamus relief. Regarding relators’ complaint about the order’s vagueness, the record fails to show that they raised this error to the trial court. See In re Rowes , No. 05

- 14

- 00606

- CV, 2014 WL 2452723, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 30, 2014, orig. proceedi ng) (mem. op.) ( “A court cannot grant mandamus relief unless the error was raised in the trial court .”). As for relators’ contention that the trial court erroneously struck their retained expert, they have failed to show that they lack an adequate appellate remedy. See In re Flores , No. 05

- 19

- 01058

- CV, 2020 WL 2847531, at *2

- 3 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 2, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief as to order striking expert testimony because relator had adequate remedy by appeal ); In re Thornton

- Johnson , 65 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (same). Finally, with respect to relators’ argument about the trial court’s failure to rule, the record does not contain adequate proof that they brought the pending moti on to the trial court’s attention and made a demand for a ruling. See In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) ( “Any such mandamus relief must be predicated on an adequate showing that a request for a ruling has been properly and adequately presented to the trial court and that the court has declined to rule.” ).– 3

–

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 52.8(a).
220853f.p05 /Lana Myers/ / LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00803

- CV

Denise MCVEA , Appellant

v. James KISSLERAppellee James KISSLER , Appellee
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 14927 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 12, 2014
DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On January 16, 2014, t he trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that the
clerk’s record ha d not been filed because appellant ha d failed to pay or make arrangements to pay
the cl erk’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying
the fee. On January 16, 2014, appellant was ordered to provide written proof to this court by January 27, 2014 that either (1) the clerk’s fee ha d been paid or arrangements ha d been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. The order
stated that i f appellant fail ed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed04

- 13

- 00803

- CV
for want of prosecution

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 37.3(b). Appellant failed to respond to within the time provided. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id

. PER CURIAM

- 2

-
Order entered December 5, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00589-CV

ESTATE OF ALAN MORGAN HUMPHREY, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-13-2943-3

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s third motion to extend the time to file a motion for 

rehearing. We GRANT the motion and extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing to 

December 19, 2016. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 
 AMENDMENT TO SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS LIMITED 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 2008
SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN 
 On October 18, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors approved an amendment to Section 3.1(a) of the
Plan. On December 14, 2012, the Company’s stockholders approved the following amendment to Section 3.1(a) of the Plan. 

“Subject to the provisions of Article 8 and Section 3.1(b), the aggregate number of Shares which may be issued or transferred pursuant to
Awards under the Plan is 4,500,000.”
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Top Image Systems Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ido Schechter, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: April 2, 2007

| |  | /s/ Ido Schechter
Ido SchechterChief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

EARL L. BULLETT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1903

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed March 29, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Polk County; William D. Sites, Judge.

Earl L. Bullett, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6933

LEONARD CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus T. FOWLKES, Director Law Library Sussex IState Prison; PAUL CUMMINGS, Treatment Programs Supervisor; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-701) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leonard Carter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Carter’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Carter that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Carter failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Carter has waived appellate review byfailing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument and deny Carter’s motion for appointment of counsel because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
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

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of New Century Resources (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Solon Piitarides , Vice
President and the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Quarterly Report fully presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Solon Piitarides

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

June 29, 2005
EXHIBIT 15.4
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-119885) on Form F-3 and (No. 333-101990 and 333-125064) on Form S-8 of Top Image Systems Ltd. of our report dated April 21, 2009, with respect to the consolidated statement of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flow of Top Image Systems (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd. (“the Company”, formerly known as Asiasoft Global Pte Ltd) and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008, not included herein, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 20-F of Top Image Systems Ltd.
 
 KPMG LLP
 
 Singapore
 March 30, 2011
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mikel H. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of DDi Corp. (the Company) certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



/s/    MIKEL H.
WILLIAMSMikel H. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: July 30, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------



The Board of Directors
Deltic Timber Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-34317 and No. 333-76294) on Form S-8 of Deltic Timber Corporation of our
report dated February 8, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Deltic Timber Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and
the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001,
which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of
Deltic Timber Corporation.



KPMG LLP
Shreveport, Louisiana
March 22, 2002
#### Hreshko v. State Farm Insurance Company

*Samuel L. Merovitz,*for plaintiffs.

*William J. Barker,*Jr., for defendant.

*363August 2, 1979

KLEIN, *J.,*

This is a petition by the insured to compel common law arbitration under the uninsured motorist coverage of a policy of public automobile habihty insurance issued by defendant insurance company.

The petition avers that on or about November 30, 1977, plaintiff Richard S. Hreshko was injured by a hit and run driver; that the incident was reported to defendant; and that a demand for arbitration was refused by defendant.

Defendant filed an answer requesting plaintiffs’ petition be dismissed for the reason that by the terms of the insurance policy: “Unless the parties otherwise agree, the arbitration shall be conducted in the county and state in which *the insured*resides . . .” (paragraph 10 on page 14 of the policy). Since plaintiffs do not aver that the parties agreed otherwise, and since they reside in Montgomery County, defendant argues that the arbitration must take place in that county.

Plaintiffs filed a response to defendant’s answer in which they relied upon the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 2179, which permits an action to be brought in a case of this kind in any county where defendant conducts business. We do not find that rule relevant to the question at issue because the parties have entered into a contract and they are bound by the terms thereof. There is no doubt Rule 2179 would apply if there were no contract, but it is equally clear that the rule cannot supersede the terms of a contract which specifically covers the question at issue. For this reason we shall dismiss plaintiffs’ petition.

In view of the above we need not rule upon the second question raised by defendant, i.e., whether plaintiffs are entitled to arbitration under common law rules.

*364Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, August 20,1979, upon consideration of plaintiffs’ petition to compel common law arbitration and defendant’s answer, it is ordered and decreed that plaintiffs’ petition be, and hereby is, dismissed.
# C_2016070EN.01000101.xml

| 24.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7886 — Postfinance/SIX Group/SIX Paynet)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 70/01)

On 18 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7886. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7886. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---