alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7345

TRYPHON PEACOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES THOMPSON, Doctor; TOM BUSH, Doctor; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, In charge of Central Prison Medical Department; UNKNOWN SURGEON, at University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-567-5-BO) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 5, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tryphon Peacock, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tryphon Peacock appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Peacock v. Thompson , No. CA-03-567-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2003). We deny Peacock’s motion for an injunction against administration of medication as it is not related to the present appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### IN RE: Lawrence M. LEVENSTEIN, Appellant

2017-1067

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 10, 2017

John S. Nagy, II, Fulwider Patton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant.

Robert J. Mcmanus, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Sarah E. Craven.

(Lourie,. O’Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### MCDONALD VS. BLOUNT.

Appeal from Hill county.

*Appearance*— Jurisdiction.—When a party comes into court and agrees that the cause may be continued, and the cause in pursuance of this agreement is continued, this is such an appearance as will operate to give the court jurisdiction of his person by consent. A plea of privilege filed after such action comes too late.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.
Exhibit 4.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         FLUSHING FINANCIAL CORPORATION


      Flushing Financial Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"),

      DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted
resolutions that set forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable. The
resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

            RESOLVED, the Board of Directors hereby proposes, and declares it
            advisable, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation
            be amended by changing Article Fourth, Paragraph (A) so that, as
            amended, said paragraph of said Article shall be and read as
            follows:

            "FOURTH: (A) The total number of shares of all classes of stock
            which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 45,000,000,
            consisting of 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $.01
            per share (hereinafter referred to as "Preferred Stock"), and
            40,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share
            (hereinafter referred to as "Common Stock")."

      SECOND: That thereafter an annual meeting of the stockholders of the
Corporation was duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the
majority of the outstanding shares was voted in favor of the amendment.

      THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Michael J. Hegarty, its authorized officer, this 22nd day of May,
2002.



                                          FLUSHING FINANCIAL CORPORATION


                                          BY: /S/ MICHAEL J. HEGARTY
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Name:  Michael J. Hegarty
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     President
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISSHAWN ARRINGTON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4676

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 19, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.087(1)(a), (2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011); Strickland v. 

State, 437 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1983); Robinson v. State, 37 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2010); Williams v. State, 836 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SMITH,JJ., Concur.
EX-10.3






CASTLE BRANDS INC.

122 East 42nd Street

Suite 4700

New York, NY 10168




May 11, 2012



Mr. Mark Andrews


[address]



Dear Mark:



This letter agreement constitutes an amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement dated as of February 26, 2010 (the “Agreement”), between Castle Brands Inc. (the
“Company”) and Mark Andrews (the “Executive”). The Company and Executive wish to amend the
Agreement as set forth below. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used herein shall
have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.




	 	A.	 	Section 3 of the Agreement is amended by deleting the date “May 1, 2012” and
inserting in its place the date “May 1, 2014”.






	 	B.	 	Section 6(a) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:






"Termination by the Company. The Company may terminate the employment of
Chairman hereunder at any time. Notice of any such termination must be in writing
and will be effective one hundred eighty (180) days following receipt by Chairman.
In the event that the employment of Chairman is terminated pursuant to this clause
(a), the Company will pay to Chairman the amount of all accrued but unpaid Base
Salary to the date of such termination, in accordance with the standard payroll
practices of the Company as in effect from time to time.”



C. This letter agreement constitutes an amendment to and a modification of the Agreement and
shall for all purposes be considered a part of the Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the
Agreement is confirmed and ratified in all respects and shall remain in full force and effect.



1



Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by countersigning two copies of this letter
agreement in the space provided below and returning one of such copies to us.



Very truly yours,



CASTLE BRANDS INC.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
 
	 	By:
	 	Richard J. Lampen
	 	 	
 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
 
	 	 	 	Richard J. Lampen

President and Chief Executive Officer
	The foregoing letter agreement	 	 	 	 
	is consented and agreed to as	 	 	 	 
	of the date first above written.	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	Mark Andrews

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 

	 	

	 	

	 	 	Mark Andrews

	 	

	 	








2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Manuel RADAMEZ-NAVA, also known as Ghost, true name Jose Antonio Salinas, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11366 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Manuel Radamez-Nava, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Manuel Radamez-Nava has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Radamez-Nava has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio Adrian MANZANO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50496

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Joshua- C. Mellor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attor- . ney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Fife, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges..

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Julio Adrian Manzano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges *473the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Manzano contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He argues that the court ignored several factors identified in the commentary to the minor role Guideline, relied on improper factors, and effectively treated simple couriers as categorically barred from receiving a role adjustment. Reviewing de novo, *see United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that the district court did not err. The record reflects the district court applied the correct legal standard and gave ample consideration to the factors listed in the commentary. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 emt. n.3(A), (C). The court was not required to “tick off’ the factors to show that it had considered them. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court properly compared Manzano’s culpability to that of his co-participants in the offense and did not rely on any improper considerations. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523. Finally, the record shows that the court understood that Manzano was eligible for a minor role adjustment, but concluded that the facts did not support an adjustment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6808 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6808

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 develop a risk-communication strategy to inform the public about the 
  hazards or potential hazards of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
                  substances, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

Mrs. Fletcher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 develop a risk-communication strategy to inform the public about the 
  hazards or potential hazards of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
                  substances, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``PFAS Risk-Communication Strategy 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RISK-COMMUNICATION STRATEGY.

    The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
develop a risk-communication strategy to inform the public about the 
hazards or potential hazards of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances, or categories of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances, by--
            (1) disseminating information about the risks or potential 
        risks posed by such substances or categories in land, air, 
        water (including drinking water and water used for agricultural 
        purposes), and products;
            (2) notifying the public about exposure pathways and 
        mitigation measures through outreach and educational resources; 
        and
            (3) consulting with States that have demonstrated effective 
        risk-communication strategies for best practices in developing 
        a national risk-communication strategy.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                                  AMENDMENT OF
                                    BYLAWS OF
                                    COHR INC.
                             A DELAWARE CORPORATION


        I, Daniel F. Clark, hereby certify that I am the duly elected and acting
Secretary of COHR Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and that at
a duly called meeting of the Corporation's Board of Directors held on December
23, 1998, Section 3.2 of the Bylaws of the Corporation was amended to read,
effective upon the execution of that certain Plan and Agreement of Merger by and
between the Corporation and TCF Acquisition Corporation, in its entirety as
follows:

               SECTION 3.2  EXACT NUMBER OF DIRECTORS

                      The exact number of directors of this Corporation shall be
               ten (10) until this Section 3.2 shall be changed by an amendment,
               not in contravention of the Certificate of Incorporation and duly
               adopted by the Board of Directors or by the stockholders.

        Executed on January 11, 1999 at Chatsworth, California.




                                    /S/ DANIEL F. CLARK 
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Daniel F. Clark
                                    Secretary
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
#### IN RE: Daniel EVERETT, Debtor. Daniel Everett, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul Boschetti, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17203

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Daniel Everett, Pro Se

Curtis Dowling, Attorney, Dowling & Marquez, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Everett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Everett’s “motion for damages and voiding of judgments for violation of automatic stay.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. *Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.),*912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Everett’s motion because Everett failed to show that the entry of stipulated judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement or payment of his state court initial appearance fee was outside the scope of the order granting relief from the automatic stay. *See Griffin v. Wardrobe (In re Wardrobe),*559 F.3d 932, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2009) (order granting relief from the automatic stay is effective as to claims pending in the state court at the time).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Mano-Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.),*773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th *565Cir. 2014); *Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### PEOPLE *v.*BOWEN.

Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Schemanske (Frank G.), J.

Submitted Division 1 June 25, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 3,787.)

Decided August 30, 1968.

Clifford Keith Bowen was convicted of robbery-armed. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *William L. Cahalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Joseph C. Murphy,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Charles Rubinoff,*for defendant on appeal.

Per Curiam:.

,By claim of appeal, defendant Bowen seeks review of his conviction of the crime of armed robbery* on March 8, 1967, following a jury trial in Detroit recorder’s court. Defendant’s brief on appeal contends that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury and that failure of the people to endorse and call an alleged *res gestae*witness constitutes reversible error. A motion to dismiss or affirm has been filed on behalf of the people pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5.

*179From a review of the brief on appeal, the motion to dismiss or affirm, and the lower court record, it is manifest that the questions raised need no argument or formal submission. The evidence adduced at trial was clearly sufficient, if believed, to Avarrant a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *People*v. *Thomas*(1967), 7 Mich App 103. No motion Avas made to require endorsement or production at trial of the alleged *res gestae*witness, although the record is replete with references to his identity by both prosecution and defense witnesses. What was said on this point in *People*v. *Rasmus*(1967), 8 Mich App 239, is equally applicable here.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and T. Gr. Kavanagh and Quinn, JJ., concurred.

*

 CLS 1961, § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp §28.797),
#### Sukhjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70005

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner

OIL, Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sukhjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on an inconsistency between Singh’s testimony and supporting documents as to his brother’s name, and the lack of detail and his inability to identify the name of the organization to which he belonged. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Indian government, or with its consent or acquiescence. *See Garcia-Milian v. Holder,*755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The State v. Kaiser.

Intoxicating Liquors: nuisance : no appearance or argument

FOR APPELLANT : AFFIRMED.

*Appeal from Wapello District Court.*

Filed, June 4, 1888.

Indictment for a nuisance in owning and keeping intoxicating liquors for sale in a certain building contrary to law. The defendant pleaded guilty, and it was adjudged that he pay a fine and the costs of the action, and an order was made for the abatement of the nuisdnce. Defendant appeals.

No appearance for appellant.

*A. J. Baker,*Attorney General, for the State.

Rothrock, J.

The appeal is presented to us upon a transcript of the indictment, plea and judgment and order of the court. So far as appears upon the face of the record the judgment and order are correct, and we can discover no ground for disturbing them.

Affirmed.