alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) ANTONIO COLBERT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action Nos. ) 11-771, 11-772, 11-928 (JDB) F.B.I., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff commenced these consolidated cases against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, alleging that they all in some way or another contribute d to the disruption of his mail . Defendants moved to dismiss

these cases. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss the Compls., ECF No. 5. 1 The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to that motion on or before August 1, 2011 and warned Plaintiff that failure to timely respond could result in the motion being granted as conceded. Order, ECF No. 10. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any response to that motion. Therefore, in a separate order to issue this date, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss as conceded. Date: September 9, 2011 /s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge

1 ECF numbers refer to the doc ket in Civil Action No. 11-771.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor LEBRON, a/k/a Victor Labron, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4247

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 23, 2017

Decided: October 27, 2017

Helen Eckert Phillips, PHILLIPS & THOMAS, PLLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Rick A. Mountcastle, Acting United States Attorney, Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Lebrón pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a prohibited object in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (d)(1)(B) (2012). The district court sentenced Lebrón to 36 months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the 4- to 10-month Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Lebrón argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the variant sentence and asserts violations of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely and as barred by the terms of an appellate waiver contained in the plea agreement.

The plea agreement contained a waiver of Lebron’s appellate rights; upon review, we conclude that Lebrón knowingly and voluntarily executed the appellate waiver. *See United States v. Tate,*845 F.3d 571, 574 n.1 (4th Cir. 2017) (providing standard). Furthermore, we conclude that the sentencing issue raised on appeal falls squarely within the scope of Lebron’s waiver of appellate rights and that the alleged Fourth and Eighth Amendment violations are not contained within the narrow class of errors that automatically fall outside the scope of an appellate waiver. *See United States v. Archie,*771 F.3d 217, 221-23 (4th Cir. 2014) (listing errors that automatically fall outside scope of appellate waiver).

*266Consequently, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver in the plea agreement. We deny as moot the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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.

*DISMISSED*
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Matthew Natalizio, Chief Financial Officer of CytRx Corporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CytRx Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 30, 2006 /s/ MATTHEW NATALIZIO     Matthew Natalizio  Chief Financial Officer
FILED

October 30, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

SEPTEMBER 1997 SESSION

EDWARD F. NESBITT, )

)

Appellant, ) C.C.A.No. 01C01-9611-CR-00491

)

vs. ) Davidson County

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Honorable Ann Lacy Johns, Judge

)

Appellee. ) (Post Conviction)

)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

WILLIAM A. LANE JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter

3236 Dilton Mankin Road

Murfreesboro, TN 37127 DARYL J. BRAND

Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Justice Division

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III

District Attorney General

ROGER MOORE

Assistant District Attorney General

222 Second Ave. North, Ste. 500

Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED: ____________________

AFFIRMED - RULE 20

CURWOOD WITT 

JUDGE
1Prior to the 1995 amendments to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, a

petitioner had three years to file his claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990)

(repealed 1995).

2

OPINION

The petitioner, Edward F. Nesbitt, appeals the Davidson County

Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is

serving a ten-year sentence following his May 18, 1990 guilty plea to the crime of

aggravated robbery. In this post-conviction action, filed December 8, 1995, he

challenges his conviction is various constitutional respects. The lower court found

his claims barred by the one-year statute of limitations and dismissed his petition

without appointing counsel or conducting a hearing. The petitioner acknowledges

more than three years passed between the date of his conviction and the filing of

his petition,1 but he alleges the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act provided him

with a one-year window to file a claim. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the

judgment of the lower court pursuant to Rule 20 of the rules of this court.

Our supreme court recently held that the Post-Conviction Procedure

Act of 1995 did not revive previously expired post-conviction claims. Arnold Carter

v. State, --- S.W.2d ---, No. 03-S-01-9612-CR-00117 (Tenn., Knoxville, Sept. 8,

1997). Moreover, the petitioner before us has presented no claim which would

entitle him to untimely relief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(g) (Supp. 1996);

Burford v. State, 8445 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992). His claims are barred. The trial

court did not err in summarily dismissing his petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-

206(b) (Supp. 1996). As a result, we find no error of law requiring reversal. The

lower court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Court of Criminal Appeals

Rules.
3

_______________________________

CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________

GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

_______________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
Walter E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Herbert Earl STILLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D16-3265

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.48



THIRD AMENDMENT
TO THE
SJW GROUP
FORMULAIC EQUITY AWARD PROGRAM FOR 
NON-EMPLOYEE BOARD MEMBERS
(As Amended by AMENDMENT NO. 2)




WHEREAS, SJW Group (the “Company”) maintains the SJW Group Formulaic Equity Award Program for Non-Employee Board Members (the “Program”) under the SJW Group Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”);
NOW, THEREFORE, the Program is hereby amended as follows to be effective with the 2019 Annual Meeting:
1.    Section II.A.2 of the Automatic Grant Program is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


“2.    Commencing with the 2019 Annual Meeting, the Applicable Annual Amount shall be in the dollar amount of Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) per non-employee Board member for the Awards to be made at each annual meeting of the Corporation’s shareholders.  For Awards made at the Annual Meetings for 2014, 2015 and 2016, the Applicable Annual Amount was in the dollar amount of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) per non-employee Board member. For Awards made at the Annual Meetings for 2017 and 2018, the Applicable Annual Amount was in the dollar amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00) per non-employee Board member”


3.    Except as expressly modified by this Third Amendment, all the terms and provisions of the Program shall continue to remain in full force and effect.
[Signature Page Follows]














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Third Amendment to be executed on this 24th day of October, 2018.


SJW Group


By:  /s/ Eric W. Thornburg
Eric W. Thornburg, President, 
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors




[Signature Page to the Third Amendment to the
Formulaic Equity Award Program for Non-Employee Board Members]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PETER JAMES SOROKAPUT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 391 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
                        Washington, D.C.  20549
                           _________________
                             FORM 10-K/A-1
(Mark One)

     X    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
          SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

             For the fiscal year ended December 27, 1997 

                                   OR 

          TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
                     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

             For the Transition period from               to              

                     Commission file number 1-9256
                       
                       PREMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
           (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) 

          Delaware                                      36-3461320
(State or other jurisdiction of                      (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)                      Identification No.)

1717 Deerfield Road, Deerfield, Illinois                     60015
(Address of principal executive offices)                  (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:(847) 405-6000

Item 1.

The undersigned Registrant hereby amends Form 10-K for the year ended December
27, 1997, filed on March 19, 1998, by adding to Exhibit 27 thereof Restated
Financial Data Schedules for fiscal years 1996 and 1995, pursuant to
Regulation S-K Item 601(c)(2)(iii) to reflect the adoption of FAS 128.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this amendment to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                                      PREMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.



Date: March 20, 1998                  By /s/John M. Costigan
                                           John M. Costigan
                                           Senior Vice President,
                                           General Counsel and
                                           Secretary


Item 2.  Exhibits.

Exhibit No.     Description of Document                   Location  

27              Restated Financial Data Schedules         Included herewith
#### Brenda JACKSON-JOHNSON, Appellant v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee

No. 16-7053

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: March 7, 2017

l:13-cv-00528-TSC

Douglas William Tyrka, Tyrka & Associates, LLC, McLean, VA, for Appellant

Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, Todd Sunhwae Kim, Solicitor General, Richard Stuart Love, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, District of Columbia, Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Ap-pellee

ORDER

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion to govern future proceedings, and appellant’s consent motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal, it is

ORDERED that the motion for voluntary dismissal be granted and this case be dismissed.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith to the district court.
(l FORT WAYNE-ALLEN COUNTY 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

. .... FORT WAYNE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

."SMITH FIELD AIRPORT 

March 15,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 


United States Department ofTransportation 


1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 


.... Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

On behalfofthe Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority - owner and operator of Fort Wayne 


International Airport (FWA) in Fort Wayne, Indiana, I am writing to express our strong support for the 


application ofDelta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. 


Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where many corporations have 

strong trade and market presence with Japan. With five (5) daily nonstop flights between FWA and Detroit 

Metro Airport, our businesses could benefit from convenient connections to Tokyo's Haneda airport, and we 

feel our community would be in a strong position to build greater relationships between our businesses and 

Japanese businesses ifthis service was granted. Our business travelers look to the convenience offlying into 

Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. 

Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This 

summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW 

to make it the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would 

clearly benefit our business travelers. 

Thank you for consideration ofthis request. 

Sincerely, 

Torrance A. Richardson, A.A.E. 

Executive Director ofAirports 

Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority 

A Whole New Altitude 

3801 W. Ferguson Rd., Ste. 209 • Fort Wayne, IN 46809-3194 • Ph: 260-747-4146 • Fax: 260-747-1762 • Web: www.fwairport.com
Sylathum STREETER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2662

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Martiniz Lee CURRY v. STATE

CR-15-1465

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Ralph G. WOOTAN and Corrinne Wootan v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 5341.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

March 20, 1956.

Charles E. Dierker and John E. Marshall, Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioners.

Charles K. Rice, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., and John Potts Barnes, Chief Counsel, and Charles E. Lowery, Sp. Atty., Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed on motion of petitioners. 12 T.C. 659.
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION





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





I, Gerald
E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the
“registrant”);





2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 officers 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)) for the registrant and have:





a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officers 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):





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.





Date: May
8, 2008





By:
            /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.Name:
            Gerald
      E. Bisbee, Jr.Title:
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,091
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              95
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                35,590
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        522
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             727
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               749
<LOANS>                                         35,590
<ALLOWANCE>                                        375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,640
<DEPOSITS>                                      55,478
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                934
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           705
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  78,640
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    753
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   25
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    40
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,515
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 603
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              826
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       38
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                296,444
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     296,444
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   177,798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 07-15-00119-CR

Emery Dominique Emmitt a/k/a Emery

Dominiaue Emmitt

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County

October 6, 2015

Opinion by Justice Campbell

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated October 6, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o