alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Madel JULIEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 01, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the summary denial of petitioner's postconviction motion in the trial court is granted in circuit court case number 11-CF-736-A for review of the trial court's order of January 30, 2017.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time. The summary record shall be transmitted to this court when the certified copy of this order is returned by the trial court clerk.

After a new appellate case number is assigned and an acknowledgment letter has issued, this court will issue an order advising the appellant of the due date of the optional initial brief.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 99


                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company"), we, Jacky K. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Blake M. Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

         (a) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

         (b) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



         Date:                         By: /s/ Jacky K. Anderson
              ---------------             -------------------------------------
                                          Jacky K. Anderson
                                          Chief Executive Officer



         Date:                         By: /s/ Blake M. Edwards
              ---------------             -------------------------------------
                                          Blake M. Edwards
                                          Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.28.1
Third Point Reinsurance Ltd.
Schedule of Signatories to the Director and Officer Indemnification Agreement


J. Robert Bredahl
Justin J. Brenden
Nicholas J.D. Campbell
Christopher S. Coleman
Steven E. Fass
Rafe de la Gueronniere
Manoj K. Gupta
Gretchen A. Hayes
Mary R. Hennessy
Daniel V. Malloy
Neil McConachie
Mark Parkin
Joshua L. Targoff
Janice R. Weidenborner
---

Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer or
Principal Accounting Officer of Lightbridge Corporation. This Certification is
made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lightbridge
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The undersigned certifies that such 10-K Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Lightbridge Corporation as of December 31, 2010.

This Certification is executed as of February 22, 2011.

By: /s/ Seth
GraeName: Seth GraeTitle: President, Chief Executive
Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)

By: /s/ James
GuerraName: James GuerraTitle: Chief Financial
Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Lightbridge Corporation and will be retained by
Lightbridge Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase Stock Agreement, dated February 19, 2009



 Exhibit 4.4 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT 
 TO 
 PURCHASE STOCK 
 THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE STOCK (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 19th day of February 2009, by and between
ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.) and SVB Financial Group. 
 Recitals 
 A. The Holder was previously issued a Warrant to Purchase Stock dated as of July 17, 2007 (the “Warrant”). Capitalized terms used in this
Amendment, but not otherwise defined in this Amendment, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Warrant. 
 B. Dawn Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.), was merged with and into ARCA biopharma Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a ARCA biopharma, Inc. and ARCA Discovery, Inc.) (the
“Merger”). 
 C. The Holder and ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.) desire to amend the Warrant to reflect the
closing of the Merger, the exchange of the common stock of the Company (as defined below) for the common stock of ARCA biopharma Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a ARCA biopharma, Inc. and ARCA Discovery, Inc.) and assumption of the
Warrant as required by Section 1.6.2(d) of the Warrant in connection with the closing of the Merger. 
 Amendments

 1. The Warrant Price shall be $14.61 per share, subject to adjustment after the date of this Amendment in accordance with the terms of the
Warrant. 
 2. The Number of Shares shall be 6,475, subject to adjustment after the date of this Amendment in accordance with the terms of the Warrant.

 3. The Class of Stock shall be the common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of the Company. 
 4. The Company shall be ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.). 
 5. Except for revisions expressly set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereby ratify and confirm the terms of the Warrant in their entirety. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set
forth above. 
  

									
	Company:	 		 	Holder:
			
	ARCA BIOPHARMA, INC.	 		 	SVB FINANCIAL GROUP
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Norman Cutler

		 	Christopher D. Ozeroff, Executive Vice	 		 	Print Name:	 	 Norman Cutler

		 	of Business Development and General Counsel	 		 	Title:	 	 Derivatives Manager
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malia ARCIERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10479

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 24, 2017 * Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed March 03, 2017

Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thomas Mineo Otake, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

1. A court may consider prejudice to the government when determining whether to sever a joint trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) (“If the joinder of ... defendants ... appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may ... sever the defendants’ trials.... ”). The court did not abuse its discretion in severing the trials so that defendants’ mutually inculpatory statements could be admitted while avoiding a Confrontation Clause problem. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

2. The special conditions of Areiero’s supervised release are not plainly erroneous. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). When imposing the sentence, the court properly considered Arciero’s mental health history and drug and alcohol abuse. See United States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732, 735-36 (9th Cir. 2007). Special condition number 2 is mandatory; it delegates to the probation office’s discretion only the details of mental health treatment. We have approved this practice. See United States v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 880-84 (9th Cir. 2005). Special condition number 4 is nei*582ther vague nor overbroad, and it is reasonably related to rehabilitative goals. See United States v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d), 3553(a)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Edwin A. Cruz VARGAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1308 CASE NO.: 2D17-4011

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Belated appeal.
Brigitte CHARBONNEAU, Appellant, v. Lawrence CHARBONNEAU, Appellee.

No. 4D17-191

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Frederick Odhiambo OPIYO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10348 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/21/2016

Frederick Odhiambo Opiyo, Pro Se

*863Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Frederick 0. Opiyo, federal prisoner # 39194-039, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d) motion challenging the revocation of his supervised release which resulted in a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Rule 60 does not provide a jurisdictional basis for relief from a criminal judgment. *See United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 142 (6th Cir. 1994). To the extent that Opiyo’s motion may be deemed as a challenge to the result of his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, it is a second or successive § 2255 motion. *See United States v. Rich,*141 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 1998). Opiyo has not obtained authorization to file such a motion, which we would deny because his claims do not satisfy the standard for a successive motion. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

Although the district court denied Opi-yo’s motion on the merits, the district court should have denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. *See Early,*27 F.3d at 142. We can, and therefore do, AFFIRM on the alternative basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the unauthorized motion. *See id.*

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manoj Kumar JHA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6856

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Manoj Kumar Jha, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Manoj Kumar Jha appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial and denying his motion for reconsideration of the order granting the Government an extension of time to file a response. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jha, No. 1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1, 2016 WL 3231038 (D. Md. June 13, 2016). We deny Jha’s motion for sanctions and his motion to vacate this court’s decision in United States v. Jha, 613 Fed.Appx. 212 (4th Cir. 2015). 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
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00010 - CV SHEILA MONASCH, APPE LLANT

V. GOLDIE NELL CARNEY A ND EDGAR JOE COFER, JR., APPELLEE S On Appeal from the 181st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 106237 - B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding



### February 8 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER , JJ. Appellant, Shelia Monasch, filed a notice of appeal in the above - referenced cause without paying the requisite filing fee. By letter dated January 9, 2019 , th e Clerk of this C ourt notified Monasch that unless s he was excused from paying costs under Appellate Rule 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by January 22 would result in dismissal of the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1, 42.3(c). To date , Monasch has not paid the filing fee, communicated to the C lerk that s he is presumed indigent under Rule 20.1, or sought leave to proceed without payment of costs. Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1 ; T EX . R. C IV . P. 145 .2

Because Monasch failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and a notice from the C lerk requiring a ction within a specified time, we dismiss the appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c). Per Curiam
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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 results of operations of the Registrant and its
subsidiaries.
 /s/ Gary C. ParksGary C. ParksTreasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)February 9, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6162 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6162

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' 
                     Tidwell Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LABRUCE ``BRUCE'' TIDWELL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, shall be known 
and designated as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' Tidwell Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``LaBruce 
`Bruce' Tidwell Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### In the Matter of Darlene M. Garland, Respondent, v John Garland, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 758]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated November 20, 2002, which, after a hearing and upon a finding that he committed family offenses within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812, directed, inter alia, that he stay 500 feet away from the petitioner, her residence, and her place of employment until November 20, 2003.

Ordered that the order of protection is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Although the order of protection has expired, in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense, the appeal is not academic *(see Matter of Hogan v Hogan,*271 AD2d 533 [2000]). The record does not support the Family Court’s determination that the husband committed family offenses warranting the issuance of the order of protection *(see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; *Matter of London v Blazer, 2*AD3d 860 [2003]; *Matter of Cavanaugh v Madden,*298 AD2d 390 [2002]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.
# Navy Identifies Sailor Who Died of COVID-Related Complications 

### 20 Oct 2021

Haberstumpf, 42, tested positive for COVID-19 Sept. 2, and was hospitalized Sept. 9. 

We will continue to support his family and shipmates during this difficult time.

For questions related to this release, please contact the Navy News Desk at (703) 697-5342 or ptgn_chinfonewsdesk@navy.mil.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Donnell TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6071

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON. & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Stephen Aubrey West, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Donnell Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2266 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2263(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 164 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral *79argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raheem MAJEED, a/k/a Mitch, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6109

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Raheem Majeed, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Majeed appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion * as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Our *82review of the record confirms that Majeed sought successive § 2255 relief without authorization from this court, and we therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order. *See United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

We construe Majeed’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact-finder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, or a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(l)-(2). Majeed’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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*

*

 Majeed also moved for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). As the district court noted, *82Majeed cannot rely on that section because he failed to timely notice an appeal as required by it.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In
connection with the Annual Report of RecycleNet Corporation, (the “Company”) on
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard R. Ivanovick Chief Financial
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.


March
      31, 2008
            /s/
      Richard R. IvanovickRichard
      R. IvanovickChief
      Financial Officer