alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, exceptunder the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 19 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DONALD CASKEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GARY STARBUCK, in his official capacity as Wyoming Department of Corrections Honor Farm Superintendent; and WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents-Appellees. No. 98-8097 (D.C. No. 96-CV-1024-D) (D. Wyo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , EBEL and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
In February 1994, petitioner-appellant John Donald Caskey pled guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child, in violatio n of Wyo. Stat. § 14-3-105. In May 1996, Caskey filed a petition for writ of habea s corpus under 28 U.S.C.- 2 -

§ 2254, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary plea, and insufficient evidence. The magistrate judge recomm ended that the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. A fter consideration of Caskey’s objections, the district court adopted the magistra te’s report and recommendation, denied habeas relief, dismissed the petition withou t prejudice, and denied Caskey’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Matthews v. Price , 83 F.3d 328, 331 (10th Cir. 1996). Caskey filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus i n the Wyoming Supreme Court alleging essentially the same constitutional claims he raises in his federal petition under § 2254. That former petition was d ismissed, however, because habeas corpus relief in Wyoming is limited to claim s of jurisdictional defect, which Caskey did not assert. The proper avenue for Caskey’s constitutional claims is Wyoming’s post-conviction relief process under Wyo. Stat. § 7-14-101. Caskey has yet to avail himself of this procedure. Thus, the federal issues presented in his § 2254 petition have not been prop erly presented to the state court. Because Caskey has failed to exhaust his st ate remedies, the district court properly denied habeas relief.- 3 -

Caskey has not made a “substantial showing of the d enial of a constitutional right,” as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). We therefore DENY Caskey’s request for a certificate of appealability , DENY his motions for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and for appoint ment of counsel, and DISMISS the appeal. The court’s show cause order o f November 13, 1998 is DISCHARGED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Daniel M. Bradbury, thePresident and Chief Executive Officer of Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the“Company”), and Mark G. Foletta, the Senior Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

 

**1.****                                     **The Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, towhich this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.****                                     **The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by thePeriodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period coveredby the Periodic Report.

 

 

Dated:  May 11,2009

 

| /S/  DANIEL M. BRADBURY                |   | /S/ MARK G. FOLETTA                                         |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| Daniel  M. Bradbury                    |   | Mark  G. Foletta                                            |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   | Senior  Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Billy Joe ACOSTA, DOC #Y52258, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3184

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,525,200
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          859,599
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   1,356,475
<MORTGAGE>                                      44,966
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               5,210,233
<CASH>                                       2,284,720
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           1,694,432
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       1,165,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,947,204
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,502,383
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          3,524,717
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 627,349
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              1,353,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,763
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,942,204
<PREMIUMS>                                   3,572,920
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            213,144
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             170,318
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 554,910
<BENEFITS>                                     880,956
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    757,907
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         2,225,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                646,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   646,761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Frederick D. MENSING, III, Appellant, v. Christopher N. KIRRIE, Christopher W. Kirrie, Robert Chester Kirrie, and Fuff, Inc., Appellees.

No. 4D17-2537

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

Frederick D. Mensing, III, Roseland, pro se.

Christopher Hicks of the Law Office of Christopher A. Hicks, Vero Beach, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                           STATER BROS. HOLDINGS INC.
                    Calculation of Earnings Per Common Share
                                   (Unaudited)
          (In thousands, except number of shares and per share amounts)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                13 Weeks Ended               39 Weeks Ended
                                              -----------------            ------------------
                                              June 23,  June 29,           June 23,    June 29,
                                               1996       1997               1996        1997
                                              ------     ------            -------    -------
<S>                                           <C>        <C>               <C>        <C>    
Net income                                    $4,385     $4,078            $12,323    $12,627

Less preferred dividends                       1,816      1,816              2,155      5,448
                                              ------     ------            -------    -------

Net income available to common shareholders   $2,569     $2,262            $10,168    $ 7,179
                                              ======     ======            =======    =======

Earnings per common share                     $51.38     $45.24            $126.75    $143.58
                                              ======     ======            =======    =======

Average common shares outstanding             50,000     50,000             80,220     50,000
                                              ======     ======            =======    =======

Common shares outstanding at end of period    50,000     50,000             50,000     50,000
                                              ======     ======            =======    =======
</TABLE>


                                       25
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made and entered
into this 4th day of December, 1997, by and between Flanders Corporation, a
North Carolina corporation (formerly known as Elite Acquisitions, Inc.)
("Flanders Corporation"), Flanders Filters, Inc., a North Carolina corporation
("Flanders Filters") (Flanders Corporation and Flanders Filters are sometimes
hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Company"), and Steven K. Clark
("Clark" or the "Executive"). In this Amendment, Flanders Corporation, Flanders
Filters, and Clark, together with their successors and permitted assignees, are
separately referred to as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." 


                             W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, Flanders Corporation, Flanders Filters and Clark entered into an
Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") dated December 15, 1995; 

WHEREAS, Flanders Corporation, Flanders Filters and Clark amended the Agreement
on October 1, 1996; and 

WHEREAS, Flanders Corporation, Flanders Filters and Clark desire to further
amend the Agreement upon the terms provided herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement
as follows: 

1. AMENDMENT TO TERM. 

Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 

The employment of the Executive by the Company under the provisions of this
Agreement shall end on December 31, 2005, unless further extended or sooner
terminated as hereinafter provided. On December 31, 2005, and on the last day of
December each year thereafter, the term of the Executive?s employment shall,
unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided, be automatically extended for
an additional two year period from the date thereof unless, at least six (6)
months before such December 31, the Company shall have delivered to the
Executive or the Executive shall have delivered to the Company written notice
that the term of the Executive?s employment hereunder will not be extended
beyond its existing duration. 


<PAGE>


2.    NO FURTHER AMENDMENT

Except as provided above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect,
unless further amended pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed and delivered this
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


                                        FLANDERS CORPORATION



                                        By:  ______________________________
                                        Its: ______________________________




                                        FLANDERS FILTERS, INC.


                                        By:  ______________________________
                                        Its: ______________________________




                                        STEVEN K. CLARK



                                        ___________________________________
                                        Steven K. Clark
Mohammad MOSTAJABIAN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Behrokh AHMADI, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Case No. 2D17-319

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

Jane H. Grossman, St. Petersburg, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Kristin A. Norse and Stuart C. Markman of Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,427,537
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,459,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,580
<PP&E>                                       3,079,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,150,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,309,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       315,119
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,837,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,150,907
<SALES>                                     44,723,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,723,677
<CGS>                                       37,330,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,012,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                91,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             317,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                302,280
<INCOME-TAX>                                   126,958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            175,322
<DISCONTINUED>                              (4,918,276)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,742,954)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.52)


</TABLE>
B.C.H. v. STATE

CR-15-1434

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Vincent Lovelace LOWE v. STATE

CR-14-1239

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0644

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KAITLYN DAWN POLICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 21, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 11 2023

01/11/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0644
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JOHN PEROTTI, Case No. 1:18-cv-482

Plaintiff,

Black, J.

vs Litkovitz, M.J.

CHIEF INSPECTOR ROGER WILSON, et al, ORDER AND REPORT

Defendants. AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), in Lucasville,

Ohio, brings this civil rights action against SOCF employees ChiefInspector Roger Wilson,

Warden Ron Erdos, Administrative Assistant Ron Edwards, and Institutional Inspector Linnea

Mahlman for alleged violations ofplaintiffs constitutional rights at SOCF. Plaintiff has paid the

filing fee.

This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review ofthe complaint (Doc. 1), as

supplemented (Docs. 5, 11),to determine whether the complaint or any portionof it should be

dismissed because it is fiivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be

grantedor seeks monetaryrelief from a defendantwho is immune from such relief. See Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 § 805, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Also before the Court are

plaintiffs Motionfor Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2), which seeks an Order from the

Court enjoining defendant Erdos from destroying plaintiffs stored case files and discovery

documents at SOCF; plaintiffs Motion for Court Copies of Exhibits (Doc. 14); plaintiffs

Motion for Copy ofExhibits to Complaint (Doc. 15); and plaintiffs Motion to Order U.S.

Marshall to Serve the Summons and Complaint on Each Defendant (Doc. 17).

The screening procedures established by § 1915 apply to complaints filed by prisoners

against governmental entities, officials or employees regardless of whetherthe plaintiffhas

Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 1 of 14 PAGEID #: 136
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: 137
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: 138
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: 139
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: 140
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: 141
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: 142
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: 143
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: 144
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: 145
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: 146
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: 147
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: 148
Case: 1:18-cv-00482-TSB-KLL Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/11/18 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: 149
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Jun-30-2000

<CASH>                                         43,178
<SECURITIES>                                   13,519
<RECEIVABLES>                                  51,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              111,491
<PP&E>                                         27,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,719)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                672,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          64,556
<BONDS>                                        76,244
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          464
<OTHER-SE>                                    271,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  672,644
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              179,320
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              122,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              8,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                48,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                   22,539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            25,981
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   25,981
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .51





</TABLE>
SAFA FINANCIALS, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Sofia FERNANDEZ, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1824

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 03, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
Jessica Ann CROWL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Charles Auther MOORE

CR-16-0015

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Glenn BROSNICK, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee FOR GSR 2007-1F, Karin Brosnick, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, formerly known as Washington Mutual Bank, FA, Long Lake Ranches West Homeowners Association, Inc., Long Lake Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. and Sunset Lakes Master Association, Inc., Appellees.

No. 4D17-119

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

Scott Edwards of Scott J. Edwards, P.A., Boca Raton, and Stephen R. Verbit, Davie, for appellant.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias and Emily Rottmann of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee U.S Bank National Association.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Taylor and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
Personal

Name: Mr. Ms. Mrs. 

Address

City State Zip 

Home Phone E-mail Address

Work

Company Position

Address

City State Zip

❑ I would like to receive the National Park Foundation monthly e-newsletter,Goparks.

I would like to support the National Park Foundation at the following level:

❑ $50

❑ $100

❑ $250

❑ Other amount $

❑ $1,000 – Bronze

❑ $2,500 – Silver

❑ $5,000 – Gold

❑ $10,000 – Platinum

❑ I wish to decline my Champions Society membership benefit of the America the Beautiful

annual park pass for gift of $1,000 or above.

❑ I am interested in information on planned gifts to the National Park Foundation.

Please make your check payable to the National Park Foundation, or charge your gift to:

❑ American Express ❑ VISA ❑ Mastercard ❑ Discover

Card Number Exp. Date

Cardholder’s signature 

Please return this form to: National Park Foundation

Attn: Gift Processing

PO Box 17394

Baltimore, MD 21298-9450

Will your company match your gift? Visit www.nationalparks.org/employeremployee-giving-campaigns to search for your employer. 

For further information, please email DonorServices@nationalparks.org or call 

1-888-GoParks (1-888-467-2757). Thank you for your support.

24D00WWF
Cory FROST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3722

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.