alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1.   | The      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);      and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:            |   | April      14, 2008                |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|  Signature: |   |  /s/      Mitchell Cox        |
|  Title:     |   |  Chief      Financial Officer |
#### Dennis Ray FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-41644

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 10, 2017

Dennis Ray Freeman, Pro Se

Melissa L. Hargis, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appel-lee

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dennis Ray Freeman, Texas prisoner # 1873252, is serving life in prison for attempted sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. Freeman filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his attempted sexual assault conviction. He subsequently filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), seeking relief from the denial of his § 2254 petition on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. The district court denied the motion. Freeman now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion.

Before he can appeal the denial of his motion under Rule 60(b), Freeman must obtain a COA. *See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman,*507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court did not determine whether Freeman was entitled to a COA. Because the district court has not issued a COA ruling, we assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. *See*Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings; *Cardenas v. Thaler,*651 F.3d 442, 444 *&*nn.1-2 (5th Cir. 2011). Nevertheless, we decline to remand this case to the district court for a COA ruling because the appeal' is frivolous, and a remand would be futile. *See United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).

In the alternative, even if we have jurisdiction sufficient to grant or deny a COA in this court absent a COA ruling in the district court, we would deny a COA. To obtain a COA, Freeman must establish that reasonable jurists would debate that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Hernandez v. Thaler,*630 F.3d 420, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2011). He has failed to make the required showing.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Freeman’s motions for a COA, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# Official Journal L 176/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 176 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 607 July 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 176

English edition

Legislation

Volume 607 July 2017

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2017/1199 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide additional assistance to Member States affected by natural disasters | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2017/1199 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures to provide additional assistance to Member States affected by natural disasters

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/S/ J. DONALD BOGGUS, JR.

J. Donald Boggus, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2009

This certification
accompanies the 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 the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
1 

SPA15 

• 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 128: Wastes From the Use of Chlorophenolic 

Formulations in Wood Surface Protection (cont'd) 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 128 

Wastes From the Use of Chlorophenolic Formulations
 

in Wood Surface Protection
 

59 FR 458-469
 

January 4, 1994
 

(RCRA Cluster IV, Non-HSWA provisions)
 

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION 

WAC 173-303· 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

EQUIV- LESS MORE BROADER 

ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE 

GENT GENT 

PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
 

SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
 

REFERENCES 

revise the reference 260.11(a) 110(3)(a) x 

• 

to "Test Methods for
 

Evaluating Solid
 

Waste,
 

Physical/Chemical
 

Methods" by
 

replacing "[Third 

Edition (September,
 

1986), as amended
 

by Update I (July 

1992)]" with "(Third 

Edition (November, 

1986), as amended 

by Updates I, II and 

IIA)"; in the second 

sentence, replace 

"Update I" with 

"Updates I, II and 

IIA"; remove the last 

sentence regarding 

where copies may 

be inspected 

• DCL128.15 - Revised: 01/25/94 

Printed: 10/21/98 January 4, 1994 - Page 1 of 2 
SPA 15· 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 128: Wastes From the Use of Chlorophenolic 

Formulations in Wood Surface Protection (cont'd) o 

PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING. OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261
 

HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
 

add the specified Appendix VIII 9905 X 

hazardous 

constituents in 

alphabetical order 

as shown below: 

Common Name Chemical Abstracts name No. 

Chemical 

abstracts 

No. 

Hazardous 

waste 

Potassium pentachlorophenate Pentachlorophenol, potassium salt 7778736 None 

Sodium pentachlorophenate Pentachlorophenol, sodium salt 131522 None 

2,3,4,6-telrachlorophenol, 

potassium salt 

2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, 

sodium salt 

same 

same 

53535276 

25567559 

None 

None . 

0 

te (November 1986) given in the FR appears to be an error because the date on the third edition of SW-836 is Septem 

was indicated in the Federal ReQTSter (58 FR 46040; August 31, 1993) addressed by Revision Checklist 126. 

Del128.15 - Revised: 01/25/94 

Printed: 10/21/98 January 4, 1994 - Page 2 of 2
#### Valerie D. Scott, Appellant, v First Stop, Inc., Doing Business as Edwards Super Food Stores, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 733]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated September 9, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 23, 1999, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the plaintiffs decedent entered a public restroom inside the defendant’s premises. When she pushed the lever of a paper towel dispenser, the front plastic cover of the paper towel dispenser “flopped open,” striking her in the face.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to establish that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition *(see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp.,*84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]; *Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]; *Abrams v Powerhouse Gym Merrick,*284 AD2d 487 [2001]; *Katsoris v Waldbaum, Inc.,*241 AD2d 511, 512 [1997]; *Kraemer v K-Mart Corp.,*226 AD2d 590 [1996]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

*529Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable to this case. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident “upon the theory that ‘certain occurrences contain within themselves a sufficient basis for an inference of negligence’ ” *(Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986], quoting *Foltis, Inc. v City of New York,*287 NY 108, 116 [1941]). To invoke the doctrine, a plaintiff must demonstrate the following elements: “(1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff’ *(Corcoran v Banner Super Mkt.,*19 NY2d 425, 430 [1967], quoting Prosser, Torts § 39, at 218 [3d ed]; *see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., supra*at 226). Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant had exclusive control over the paper towel dispenser, located within a public restroom, which the defendant never locked. The paper towel dispenser was continuously available to the public, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant had control “of sufficient exclusivity to fairly rule out the chance that the [alleged defect] was caused by some agency other than defendant’s negligence” *(Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., supra*at 228; *see Fernandez v Ramos,*300 AD2d 348 [2002]; *Ruggiero v Waldbaums Supermarkets,*242 AD2d 268, 269 [1997]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
John G. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4959

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
The Safety Fund Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference on Registration Statement Nos.
33-61787, 33-17071 and 33-52598 on Form S-8 filed by CFX Corporation of our
report dated January 22, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
The Safety Fund Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December
31, 1995 annual report on For 10-KSB of The Safety Fund Corporation which is
included as an exhibit to the December 31, 1996 Form 10-K of CFX Corporation.




                                        /s/
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Umbrella Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John G.
Yedinak, 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.

/s/ John G. Yedinak

John G. Yedinak
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2003
1 ... T h is p ro c e e d ing a rise s o u t o f C a u se N o . 1 9 9 3 -C R -0 7 6 2 -W 2 , f iled i n t h e 1 4 4 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No . 0 4- 08 -0 07 46 -C R IN RE Eduardo H
. WILLIAMS , J r. Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez , Chief J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 22, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Oc tob e r 6 , 2 00 8, re lator

fi le d a Mo tio n f

or L e a ve to F ile Pe tit ion

fo r Wr it o f M and a mus . No leave is require d to file a pe tition for writ of m an d am u s ; t h ere fore , we DENY the motion for leave to file as moot. Als o on October 6, 2008, relator filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, asking this court to or der the trial court to r ule on his motion for appointment of counse l, which he se eks for the pur

pose of r equestingand obtaini n g ac ce ss to “rec ords and public infor mation.” Relator
c on te nd s h e fi le d his moti on on July 9, 20 08
. Re lator ha s n ot p ro vid e d th is c ourt wi th a c op y of his motion or any

other e vidence of t he number of other c ases, motions, or issues pendingon the trial court’s doc ket; the number of case s, motions, or iss ues that have been pe nding on its docke t longe r04
- 08
- 00 74 6- CR

- 2- tha n r e la tor ’s mot ion ; th e numbe r o f c a ses, mo tio ns , o r i ssu e s p e nd ingon its do c ke t th a t la

wf ull y may be entitled to pref

ere ntial se ttings; or the trial court’s schedule
. Wit hout suc h evidenc e, we can not assess whethe r the trial c ourt has acte d unrea sonably in failing to addre ss the motion withi n the sli g htl y mor e tha n thre e mon ths it h a s b e e n p e nd ing . Atr ia l c ourt ha s g re a t discre ti on ov er i ts docket, a nd, while it cannot opt to fore ver a void hear ing a

motion, no li tiga

nt is entitl ed to a he aring at whatever tim e he ma

y choose. See In re Cha v e

z, 62 S.W .3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001,
or ig . p ro c e e din g ); se e als o W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S
. W .2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (par ty seeking
mand a mus re lie f h a s b ur de n o f p ro vid ingc ourt wi th a su ff ic ie nt r e c or d to e sta

bli sh hi s ri ght to relief ). Be cause relator has not me t his burden of providing a rec ord establishing that a prope rly filed motion has awaited disposi tion for an unrea sonable ti me, he has not provided thi s court with g rounds to usurp the trial cour

t’s inhere nt authority

to con t ro l i ts own docket. The ref ore, this cour

t has deter mined that relator is not entitled to the re lief soug ht, and the petition is DENI ED. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

PER C URI AM Do no t pu bli sh
#### Terry D. QUATTLEBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Richard G. Reese, Jr., Resident, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1327

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 1, 2017

Decided: August 15, 2017

Terry D. Quattlebaum, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Robert Haughton, MCGUIRE-WOODS, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Emily Michele Patterson, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry D. Quattlebaum filed this action— his second—asserting several claims arising out of the sale of his mortgage and foreclosure on his home. The Defendants moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds. Quattlebaum sought to amend his complaint, but the district court denied the motions to amend and dismissed the complaint as barred by res judicata. Quattleb-aum appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend his complaint as futile. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to amend on futility grounds. *United States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH,*756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2014). As the district court concluded, res judicata would bar litigation of the claims Quattlebaum sought to add. *See Pueschel v. United States,*369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing elements of res judi-cata). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling. 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*
Kiara Rochelle SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2469

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Allen RUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX-10.29-4





 Exhibit 10.29-4 

 

			
	



	 	 MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation

c/o MagnaChip Semiconductor, Ltd.

501, Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu

Seoul 06168, Korea
 Office +82-2-6903-3666
 Fax +82-2-6903-5093
 Theodore.Kim@MagnaChip.com


 September 3, 2018 
 Young
Joon Kim 
 [address omitted] 
 Dear Mr. Kim: 

The purpose of this Letter (this “Letter”) is to clarify our understanding with respect to certain provisions of the
Employment Agreement between you, MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation (“Parent”), and MagnaChip Semiconductor, Ltd. (together with Parent, the “Company”), dated as of April 26, 2018 (the “Employment
Agreement”). When fully executed, this Letter will constitute an amendment to the Employment Agreement. Any capitalized term not otherwise defined in this Letter shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Employment Agreement. 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Employment Agreement, you and the Company hereby agree as follows: (i) the Expatriate
Benefits will include gross tuition, including bus fees, as applicable from time to time, for your children; and (ii) the Housing Support section of Exhibit A is hereby amended to provide that you will receive housing support/reimbursement from
the Company, not to exceed KRW 186,346,200 per calendar year (whether paid as rent or on an equivalent basis if paid as key money deposit), which amount shall be prorated as appropriate if the housing support/reimbursement commences or is modified
during any calendar year, whether or not you remain in the same housing as you maintain as of the Effective Date. 
 This Letter and the
Employment Agreement contain the entire understanding between the parties on the subjects covered herein and supersede all prior agreements, arrangements and understandings, whether written or oral, regarding the subjects covered herein. The
Employment Agreement and this Letter may not be changed, nor may any of their provisions be waived, orally, but may only be changed in writing signed by both parties. The Employment Agreement shall be amended hereby to the extent set forth herein.
However, except as specifically amended or otherwise clarified by this Letter, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 












 Please sign and return this Letter to confirm your receipt, understanding and agreement with the terms of
this Letter, and the immediate impact of this Letter upon the Employment Agreement. 
 Yours sincerely, 

 

			
	MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR, LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Theodore Kim

	Name:	 	Theodore Kim
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President

 MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Theodore Kim

	Name:	 	Theodore Kim
	Title:	 	Chief Compliance Officer, Executive Vice President and General Counsel

 I confirm my receipt, understanding and agreement with the terms of this Letter. 

 

	
	 /s/ Young Joon Kim

	Young Joon Kim
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have
issued our report dated May 12, 2008, accompanying the financial statements of
Cascade Wind Corp., Inc. (formerly known as Intermountain Refining Co., Inc.)
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2008
which is incorporated by reference in this Registration Statement.  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of the
aforementioned report and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption
“Experts”.





RICHEY,
MAY & CO., LLP





Englewood,
Colorado


June 9,
2009
Matthew WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4256

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Joseph Harvey GAUTREAUX, et al. v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INS. CO.

NO. 2018-CC-0576

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Supreme Court of Louisiana June 1, 2018

Denied.
Michael CARUSO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2202

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*1013*Affirmed. See**Johnson v. State* , 215 So.3d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), *rev. granted* , Case No. SC17-845, 2017 WL 3484099 (Fla. July 28, 2017).

Warner, Gross and Taylor, JJ., concur.