alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6083
MERMANN KELLAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director; HOWARD YOUNG, Representative; K. V. BONNER, Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-529-AM) Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mermann Kellam, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mermann Kellam appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kellam v. Angelone , No. CA-00-529-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 29, 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 23(b)
                                                            

          Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                              
                              
                              
We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  this
Registration Statement of Smith Corona Corporation on Form S-
8 of our report dated August 21, 1998 (September 28, 1998 as
to  Note 16), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Smith Corona Corporation for the year ended June 30, 1998.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Stamford, CT
February 25, 1999
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Richard J. Gaynor, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sonus Networks, Inc.;

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

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: August 11, 2008

/s/RICHARD J. GAYNORRichard J. Gaynor Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### Robert C. Patterson, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William Bagley, defendant in error.

When the levy in a claim case was dismissed by the court, with judgment for cost for claimant, although it be for a cause which may not be a legal ground for the dismissal of the levy, yet the piaintiff in execution cannot proceed to the trial of the claim case under the same levy* unless this order of dismissal be set aside or reversed.

Claim. Execution. Judgment. Before Judge James Johnson. Chattahoochee' Superior Court. March Term, 1874.

On March 17th, 1869, an execution in favor of Robert C„ Patterson against George H. Kelly *et al.,*for $95 00 principal, $15 50 interest and costs, based on a judgment rendered by the superior court of Chattahoochee county, on March 29th, 1861, was levied upon certain lands as the property of Kelly. A claim was interposed thereto by William Bagley. Upon the trial of the issue thus formed it appeared that at the September term, 1871, of said court, an order was passed dismissing said levy, because no affidavit of the payment of taxes had been filed, and directing a judgment for costs in favor of the claimant. It was insisted by counsel for plaintiff that said order, having been based on an unconstitutional law, was null and void, and that said levy was not affected thereby. The court held that there was no case before it; that said levy had been dismissed by said order, and that it could do nothing in the premises. To which ruling plaintiff excepted.

*484Little *&*Crawford ; H. Bussey, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

E. G. Raieord ; B. A. Thornton, by brief, for defendant.

Trippe, Judge.

The court below held that as the levy had been dismissed by the judgment of the court, although a reason not good in law might have been assigned, yet as long as that judgment remained unreversed or was not set aside, there was no case in court; that the claim case was disposed of by the dismissal of the levy; and further, that a judgment was not void simply because a wrong reason was given for it. The subject matter before the court was the levy, the claim, and the issue growing out of it. The court had jurisdiction of all that, and a judgment rendered thereon was not void because a ground not good in law was assigned as a reason for it. If the pleadings are so defective that no legal judgment can be rendered, the judgment may be arrested or set aside. Or when a judgment has been rendered either party may move in arrest thereof, or to set it aside for any defect not amendable which appears on the face of the record or pleadings. A motion in arrest must be made during the term at which the judgment was obtained. A motion to set it aside may be made at any time within the statute of limitations: Code, sections 3587, 3588, 3589. None of these sections make such a judgment void, a nullity. Where they are not void, the proper steps should be taken either in arrest or to set them aside. A case dismissed is out of court, although an erroneous reason is assigned for the dismissal, and the proper proceedings must be taken in order to avoid its effect.

Judgment affirmed.
ex10-2.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2







EXHIBIT A


 


CANADIAN LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Employee: (Name)


 


Date of Award: (Date)


 


Number of Units Awarded: (Units)


 


Vesting Schedule:                 (Schedule)


 


The Plan is cash based and the value of your award will track the price of Oil States stock.  The “units” you are awarded do not represent actual shares of stock, but the right to receive a cash payment that is based on the value of Oil States stock on a date certain.  The awards vest annually over a three year period, one third each year.







On each vesting date, the value for that year is determined based on Oil States’ stock price, and the Company will send you a cash payment for that value, subject to your payment of all taxes and regular withholdings.  To be eligible to receive the payment, you must be employed by the Company on the vesting date of the award.


 


Example of how the Plan operates:


 



	
  

	
Ø

	
You are awarded 300 units on (Same as “Date of Award”)







 



	
  

	
Ø

	
One year later on (Day before “Date of Award”), 2014, if you are still employed by the Company, you would be eligible to receive a cash payment of 100 multiplied by the price of Oil States stock at the close of business on (Day before “Date of Award”),2014.  The value of your award will rise and fall with the value of the Oil States stock over the course of the vesting period, thereby aligning your interests with that of our shareholders.







 



	
  

	
Ø

	
On (Day before “Date of Award”) in 2015 and 2016, the other 200 units would vest, pro-rata and you would be eligible for a payment, conditioned upon being employed by the Company on the vesting date(s).







 


In the event of the death of a participant during the vesting period, all units would vest at the date of death and the participant’s estate would be paid the value of the units.


 


In the event that a participant becomes disabled, as defined in the Company’s Long Term Disability policy, the participant will still continue to be eligible for participation on the Plan, as long as the participate remains an employee of the Company.


 


In the event of retirement of a participant prior to a vesting date, all unvested units in the Plan are forfeited upon the date of retirement.


 


In the event of a change of control of Oil States International Inc., all units would vest upon the date of the Change of Control and the participant would be paid the value of the units as of the date of the Change of Control.


 


Employee Signature: ________________________________


 


Printed Name: _____________________________________


 


Date:____________________________________________


 







 


PLEASE RETURN TO THE PTI GROUP INC. CORPORATE OFFICE TO THE ATTENTION OF pinky.aulakh@ptigroup.com
**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 theQuarterly Report of Nanosphere, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger Moody, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer 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: 

1. 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 ofthe Company. 

 

Date: August 7, 2012 

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by §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.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18938-18939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08037]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Termination; 
American Service Insurance Company, Inc.

AGENCY: Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 9 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570; 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificate 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to American Service Insurance 
Company, Inc. (NAIC #42897) under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as an 
acceptable surety on Federal bonds is terminated effective

[[Page 18939]]

immediately. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their 
reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 
(``Circular''), 2014 Revision, to reflect this change.
    With respect to any bonds currently in force with this company, 
bond approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need 
not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from 
this company and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be 
renewed.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/surety/Bnd/surety_home.htm.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Section, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: March 26, 2015.
Kevin McIntyre,
Manager, Financial Accounting and Services Branch.
[FR Doc. 2015-08037 Filed 4-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2474 

GRACE PETRAL ANYIKE,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A96-100-373)

Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: August 22, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Joel E.

Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Grace Petral Anyike, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s

order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

Anyike challenges the immigration judge’s finding that

she failed to demonstrate that she filed her application within one

year of the date of her arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to

review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000).

See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004)

(collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot

review the underlying merits of Anyike’s asylum claim. 

While we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s ruling

on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial

of Anyike’s requests for withholding of removal and protection

under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2005). “To qualify for

withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a

clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002)

(citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1994)). To qualify for

protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of
- 3 -

demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would

be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Based on our review of the record,

we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that

Anyike failed to meet these standards. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EX-10.86



 EXHIBIT 10.86 

 

													
	 	  	(Unaudited)	 
	 	  	Year ended	 
	 (in thousands)
	  	Dec. 31,
2012	 	  	Dec. 31,
2011	 	  	Dec. 31,
2010	 
	 EBITDA(1)
	  	$	216,963	  	  	$	229,558	  	  	$	209,567	  
		  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 
				
	 Reconciliation of EBITDA:
	  				  				  			
	 Net Income
	  	 	109,408	  	  	 	126,105	  	  	 	98,847	  
	 Add: Income taxes
	  	 	58,963	  	  	 	71,286	  	  	 	52,409	  
	 Add: Interest expense and other, net, the Ed Hardy gain and loss on marketable securities
	  	 	41,826	  	  	 	24,194	  	  	 	49,552	  
				
	 Add: Depreciation and amortization of certain intangibles
	  	 	6,766	  	  	 	7,973	  	  	 	8,759	  
		  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 
				
	 EBITDA
	  	$	216,963	  	  	$	229,558	  	  	$	209,567	  
		  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 

  

	(1)	EBITDA, a non-GAAP financial measure, represents net income before income taxes, interest, other non-operating gains and losses, depreciation and amortization expenses.
The Company believes EBITDA provides additional information for determining its ability to meet future debt service requirements, investing and capital expenditures. 


 

													
	 	  	(Unaudited)	 
	 	  	Year ended	 
	 (in thousands)
	  	Dec. 31,
2012	 	 	Dec. 31,
2011	 	 	Dec. 31,
2010	 
	 Free Cash Flow(2)
	  	$	180,485	  	 	$	179,213	  	 	$	166,571	  
		  	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 
				
	 Reconciliation of Free Cash Flow:
	  				 				 			
	 Net Income
	  	 	109,408	  	 	 	126,105	  	 	 	98,847	  
				
	 Add: Non-cash income taxes, non-cash interest related to convertible debt, depreciation, amortization of certain intangibles and
finance fees, non-cash compensation expense, bad debt expense, net equity earnings from certain joint ventures, non-cash gain/loss from sale of trademarks, re-measurement of investments and loss on marketable securities
	  	 	72,675	  	 	 	56,350	  	 	 	70,914	  
				
	 Less: Capital expenditures
	  	 	(1,598	) 	 	 	(3,242	) 	 	 	(3,190	) 
		  	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 
				
	 Free Cash Flow
	  	$	180,485	  	 	$	179,213	  	 	$	166,571	  
		  	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 

  

	(2)	Free Cash Flow, a non-GAAP financial measure, represents net income before depreciation, amortization, non-cash compensation expense, bad debt expense, net equity
earnings from certain joint ventures, non-cash income taxes, non-cash interest related to convertible debt, non-cash non-recurring gains and charges, less capital expenditures. The Free Cash Flow also excludes any changes in Balance Sheet items. The
Company believes Free Cash Flow is useful in evaluating its financial condition because it is representative of cash flow from operations that is available for repaying debt, investing and capital expenditures.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BILLY KENNEDY SNODDY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 6:18

- cr - 00476

- TMC

- 1 )

Submitted : March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Billy Kennedy Snoddy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Kennedy Snoddy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021) . Here, t he district court found that Snoddy exhausted his administrative remedies and recounted the extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The court denied the motion, however, after analyzing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and
determin ing that relief was not warranted under the circumstances in Snoddy’s case. Upon review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in den ying Snoddy’s motion for compassionate release based on its thorough consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 186

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Snoddy , 6:1 8

- cr - 00476

- TMC

- 1 (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2021). 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
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of RADVision Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gad Tamari, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Gad Tamari*
--------------
Gad Tamari
Chief Executive Officer
November 10, 2003


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
**Exhibit 21.1****SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**1. Lotus Technologies, Inc. — Santa Clara, California 2. IRPC, Inc. — Santa Clara, California 3. DeltaNu, Inc. — Laramie, Wyoming 4. Northern Acquisition Corporation, dba Creative Display Systems — Carlsbad,California 5. Intevac Foreign Sales Corporation — Barbados 6. Intevac Asia Private Limited — Singapore 7. Intevac Malaysia Sdn Bhd — Malaysia 8. Intevac Limited — Hong Kong 9. Intevac (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd — China 10. IVAC Co. Ltd — Korea 11. Intevac Japan Kabushiki Kaisha (KK) — Japan
1

Order filed December 8, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00822-CV

____________

TOKES ADELEYE, Appellant

V.

MAGARET MODUPE DRISCAL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-66224

____________

NO. 14-16-00922-CV

____________

IN RE TOKES ADELEYE, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

ORDER
2

On October 14, 2014, Tokes Adeleye filed a notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s order signed October 8, 2014. That appeal was assigned to this court under 

our appellate case number 14-14-00822-CV. On March 8, 2016, this court issued 

an opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment. On March 21, 2016, Adeleye

notified this court that he filed for bankruptcy on January 1, 2013, prior to the trial 

court’s order in this case. On April 28, 2016, this court abated the appeal and 

remanded to the trial court for consideration of the bankruptcy stay’s effect on the 

trial court’s judgment. The bankruptcy was discharged July 10, 2015.

On November 14, 2016, Adeleye filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

complaining of the trial court’s order on remand. The original proceeding has been 

assigned our case number 14-16-00922-CV. 

Today, the court, on its own motion, orders the appeal REINSTATED and 

set at issue. The appeal and the original proceeding are ordered CONSOLIDATED. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise.