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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM DEVON MCMANUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00174-CCE-1; 1:15-cv-00856-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 7, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Devon McManus, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Devon McManus seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 

McManus 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# CA2014182EN.01000101.xml

| 14.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 182/1

---

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION

2014/C 182 A/01

The open competitions:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Greek as their main language (EL)

  and |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Greek as their main language (EL)

EPSO/AST/127/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Greek as their main language (EL)

and

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Portuguese as their main language (PT) |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Portuguese as their main language (PT)

EPSO/AST/128/13 — Proofreaders (AST 3) with Portuguese as their main language (PT)

for which the notices were published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (1) are cancelled.

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

(1)  OJ C 131 A, 8.5.2013, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibits
--------

99.1     Proxy Vote for Meeting of Limited Partners of Technology Funding
         Venture Partners V, An Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P.
         May 20, 2005

TECHNOLOGY FUNDING VENTURE PARTNERS V,
AN AGGRESSIVE GROWTH FUND, L.P.

Proxy Vote for Tri-Annual Meeting of Limited Partners

Proxy Solicited by the Individual General Partners of the Partnership

The Inspector of Election for the Tri-Annual Meeting of the
Limited Partners of Technology Funding Venture Partners V, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P., (the "Partnership") held at 460 St.
Michael's Drive, Suite 1000, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, at 11:00 a.m.
local time, on Friday, May 20, 2005, reports the vote tallies
for the following proposals:

1.  The election of two Individual General Partners each for a
three-year term or until the earlier termination of the Partnership.

Harry E. Kitch      384,387 Units voting For
Richard A. Marcum   384,477 Units voting For

2.  The election of two Managing General Partners each to serve for a
three-year term or until the earlier termination of the Partnership.

Technology Funding Inc.    384,045 Units voting For
Technology Funding Ltd.    384,095 Units voting For

3.  The amendment of Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 3.05 of the Amended and
Restated Limited Partnership Agreement to remove Technology Funding
Inc., a Managing General Partner, as a voting General Partner on
matters of Partnership governance.

FOR - 378,965         AGAINST - 7,618         ABSTAIN - 13,417

4.  Ratification of the Individual General Partners' appointment of Grant
Thornton LLP as independent registered public accountants of the
Partnership.

FOR - 386,417         AGAINST - 4,899         ABSTAIN - 8,684
f10k2012a1ex10xvb_path.htm


Exhibit 10.15b


 



	
[ University of Glasgow letterhead ]













	
Pathfinder, LLC


12 Bow Street


Cambridge


MA 02138


USA


 

	
 


 


 


 


 


 


28 March 2013


	
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL












Dear Sirs


 


Research Agreement – Extension No. 3







We refer to our recent discussions regarding the research agreement between The University Court of the University of Glasgow (the University) and Pathfinder, LLC (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pathfinder Cell Therapy, Inc., previously known as SyntheMed, Inc.) (the Company) (contract no. 49974/1) dated 23 March 2009, as extended by way of an extension letter from the University to the Company dated 19 April 2012 (the Research Agreement).  Terms defined in the Research Agreement will have the same meaning where used herein.







The Research Agreement was due to expire on 24 March 2013.  The purpose of this letter is to document the parties’ agreement to vary the terms of the Research Agreement in order to extend the term of the Research Agreement for a further period of twelve months.







Therefore, notwithstanding the date hereof and with effect from 24 March 2013, each of the University and the Company have agreed as follows:








	
1.  

	
The Subsequent Period will be extended for a further period of twelve (12) months (and so the Subsequent Period will now expire on 23 March 2014);







 



	
2.  

	
The research to be carried out by the University during the extended portion of the Subsequent Period is set out in Appendix 1 to this letter;







 



	
3.  

	
In consideration of the research services to be conducted by the University during the extended portion of the Subsequent Period, the Company shall pay to the University the sum of two hundred and five thousand pounds (£205,000).  Such sum will be payable in twelve (12) equal instalments monthly in arrears, the first instalment being due on 23 April 2013 and each subsequent instalment being due on the 23rd day of the relevant calendar month.  Such sums shall be paid by the Company to the University by way of a bank transfer.







 



	
4.  

	
The Research Agreement will continue in full force and effect, as varied by the terms of this letter, unless and until terminated in accordance with its terms.







 



	
5.  

	
This letter will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Scotland







 


Please confirm your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing, dating and returning the enclosed copy hereof.


 


Yours faithfully


 


/s/ Paul Ellis


 


For and on behalf of The University Court of the University of Glasgow


 




  





  











  






 


We accept the terms of the above letter and agree to be bound by its terms:


 



	By: 	
/s/ John M. Benson 

	
4/8/13


	 	
John M. Benson, CFO

	
Date


	 	 	 
	For and on behalf of Pathfinder, LLC












  





  











  






 


[Appendix I Omitted]
# Official Journal C 33/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 33 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6627 January 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 33

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6627 January 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 33/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2023/1 (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2023/C 33/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2023/1 (
  1
  ) | 19 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 33/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2023/1 (
  1
  )

1

1

2023/C 33/02

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2023/1 (
  1
  )

1

19

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors


Mohawk Industries, Inc.:





We consent to the use of our reports with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting incorporated by reference herein and to the reference to our Firm under the heading “Experts” in the prospectus.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia


August 4, 2017
#### C. C. Herrington, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

Where, after the argument of a criminal case in this court, but before the judgment is pronounced, the defendant dies, the proceedings abate, and no decision will be pronounced. (R.)

Criminal law. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court. January Term, 1875.

The above head-note sufficiently reports this case.

W. F. Wright; Peeples & Howell, for plaintiff in error.

John T. Glenn, solicitor general, for the state.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.8

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


                  KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Eric W. Golden, Bobby G. Jenkins and Barry F.
Schwartz or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the PANAVISION INC. (the
"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and
on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or
officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any
instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the
Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including this power of
attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable
securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents
this 3rd day of February 2003.



                                            /S/ ROBERT S. WIESENTHAL
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Robert S. Wiesenthal
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41077 Summary Calendar

RALPH WESLEY ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus W.H. PALOT, Lieutenant; DAVID A. TUCK; RODRIGUES, Sergeant; GARY JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Defendants-Appellees. * * * * * RALPH WESLEY ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TIMOTHY A. GIBBONS, M.D.; G.L. BERRY, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (G-93-CV-59 & G-93-CV-613) July 7, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 Henthorn v. Swinson , 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 504 U.S. 988 (1992).

2 Rogers also alleged interference with his mail in another action, case number 90-G-342, but he does not raise that issue on appeal. 2 PER CURIAM: * Ralph Wesley Rogers, Sr. (#493394), a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Rogers contends that he was denied access to the courts because prison guards interfered with the mailing of legal documents pertaining to case number G-91-25, another 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed by Rogers against a prison guard for physical assault. “A denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim is not valid if a litigant’s position is not prejudiced by the alleged violation.” 1 Although the district court originally dismissed case number G-91-25, Rogers concedes that the case was reinstated. Accordingly, Rogers has not been prejudiced by the alleged interference with his mail and his contention is without merit. 2 Rogers also contends that Doctors Berry and Gibbons acted with deliberate indifference in changing his work restrictions so that he was eligible for assignment to field work. Unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, neglect, or medical3 Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991). 3 malpractice is insufficient to give rise to a section 1983 cause of action. 3 Rogers’ mere disagreement with the doctors’ decision to change his work restrictions does not establish a constitutional claim. The district court’s dismissal is affirmed.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE01955

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600216

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JOSEPH A. EBEY

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Mark D. Sameit, USMC.

For Appellant: Commander Suzanne M. Lachelier, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 30 November 2016

_________________________

Before PALMER, FULTON and PETTIT, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Exhibit
      23





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





Cash
      Technologies, Inc.


Los
      Angeles, California





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
      333-413536 on Form S-3, the registration statements (No. 333-117252 and
      333-90680) on Form SB-2 and the registration statements (333-114789, Nos.
      333-90664, 333-125630, 333-131070, 333-132892, and 333-72654) and on Form S-8
      of
      our report dated August 17, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial
      statements of Cash Technologies, Inc. as of May 31, 2005 and for the year then
      ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. Our report
      contains an explanatory paragraph regarding Cash Technologies Inc's ability
      to
      continue as a going concern.





Los
      Angeles, California


September
      13, 2007
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Cash Technologies, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-41536) of our
report dated September 17, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Cash Technologies, Inc. as of May 31, 2001 and for the year then
ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. Our report
contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's ability to continue as
a going concern.


Los Angeles, California
September 17, 2001

                                                /s/ VASQUEZ & Company, LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                       288
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,016
<PP&E>                                          11,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           244
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,395
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,407
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,133)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,440
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,269
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,171
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,171
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1745

EVELYN COULTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-02-1645)

Submitted: March 8, 2004 Decided: March 22, 2004

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan M. Mattson, HALE, HASSAN, CARLSON & PENN, PLC, Fairfax,

Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,

Anita Claire Snyder, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Evelyn Coulter appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her Federal Tort Claims Act action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Coulter v.

United States, No. CA-02-1645 (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2003). 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
Exhibit 32.2

                            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  Quarterly   Report  of  Northeast   Mortgage
Corporation  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Sean Rogerson,  Vice-President 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, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/    Sean Rogerson
--------------------
Sean Rogerson
Vice-President
(Principal Financial Officer)


November 14, 2003


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
EXHIBIT 10.12
                      CURRNET FORM OF CHANGE IN CONTROL

Michael Czinege

Philip R. Crimmins, Sr.

Carol DiRaimo

Matt Drennan

Beverly O. Elving

Miguel Fernandez

Tom Finocchiaro

Kurt Hankins

Nancy Keil-Culbertson

Mark Killeen

John Mallon

Larry Miller

David R. Parsley

Sam Rothschild

Rohan St. George

Carin Stutz

Stanley M. Sword

Rebecca R. Tilden

Douglas D. Waltman

Scott White