alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7694

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

Michael Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edward Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 demon*295strating 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, 154 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; Marsden & Seledee; The O’Neal Law Firm, LLP; Thatcher Law Firm; Mitchell I. Batt, (Individual capacity); Bryan Chapman; Mr. Raouf Abdullah, (Individual capacity); Robert E. Cappell; C. Sukari Hardnett, (Individual capacity); Bradford Associates; Maryland State Education Association; Association of Supervisory & Administrative School; Shani K. Whisonant; O’Malley, Miles, Nylen & Gilmore, P.A.; Maryland State Department of Education, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2264

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN *&*SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua seeks to appeal the. district court’s order remanding the underly*281ing action to state court. Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not renewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); see *E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc.,*722 F.3d 574, 579-83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s order does not fall within the exceptions provided by § 1447, the order is not appealable.

Accordingly, we grant California Casualty Indemnity Exchange’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but deny its motions for attorney’s fees and for reconsideration of our order granting Mua extensions of time. We grant Mua’s motions to exceed the length limitations for his appellate filings and for leave to file a supplemental brief, but deny Mua’s motion to suspend these proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Mike Peller and Abraham Podinker, Appellants.

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

Separate motion by each appellant for reargument granted. Reargument set for second week of October, 1943. (See 290 N. Y. 905.)
#### Pedro RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matt GRECO, District Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55091

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Pedro Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitu*714tional violations arising out of criminal proceedings against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In Rodriguez’s opening brief, Rodriguez failed to address any of the grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation ' and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See 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 provid*714ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Morris U. Schappes, Appellant.

Submitted September 9, 1943;

decided September 9, 1943.

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following:

‘ ‘ A question under the Constitution of the United States was presented and necessarily passed upon by this court, viz: Was the refusal by the Legislative Committee to produce the testimony of People’s witnesses at the private hearings of the Legislative Committee, so as to permit of their inspection by the Trial Court, or their use by the defense in cross examination, a denial to defendant of a fair trial and a deprivation to him of his liberty without *1*due process of law ’ in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States *t*” (See 291 N. Y. 575.)
#### FARMHAND, INC., Appellant, v. LAHMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., and Robert Anderson, d/b/a Platte Implement, Appellees.

No. 80-2018.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 21, 1981.

Decided June 10, 1981.

*154John D. Gould, Douglas J. Williams, Merchant, Gould, Smith, Edell, Welter. & Schmidt, P. A., Minneapolis, Minn., Deming Smith, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, S. D., for appellant.

Kenneth D. Siegfried, Schroeder, Siegfried, Ryan, Vidas, Steffey & Arrett, P. A., Minneapolis, Minn., Joe L. Maynes, Maynes, Tonner, Maynes & Tobin, Aberdeen, S. D., for appellees.

Before GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and McMANUS,* Chief District Judge.

*

 Edward J. McManus, Chief District Judge, Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying Farmhand, Inc.’s (Farmhand’s), motion for contempt. Reversed.

This is a patent case that has been before us on two previous occasions. On the first occasion we affirmed the trial court’s determination that a machine manufactured by Lahman Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Lahman), infringed Farmhand’s patent. *Farmhand, Inc. v. Lahman Mfg. Co.,*568 F.2d 112 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*436 U.S. 913, 98 S.Ct. 2254, 56 L.Ed.2d 414 (1978). We are now called upon to review an order of the trial court denying a contempt motion of Farmhand’s that was based on the contention that Lahman was manufacturing and selling a new machine that also infringed Farmhand’s patent and thereby violated the trial court’s injunction.

Farmhand asserts on appeal that the district court failed to decide the motion for contempt on the merits. We agree. It appears from the record that the district judge below having earlier taken senior status, at the hearing on Farmhand’s motion elected not to involve himself further with the case and denied Farmhand’s motion on that basis.

As authority for his decision to remove himself he relied on 28 U.S.C. § 294(b), which provides:

> (b) Any judge of the United States who has retired from regular active service under section 371(b) or 372(a) of this title shall be known and designated as a senior judge and may continue to perform such judicial duties as he is willing and able to undertake, when designated and assigned as provided in subsections (c) and (d).

While this statute would indeed seem to authorize the trial judge’s decision to discontinue his involvement with the case, it does not authorize his failure to decide Farmhand’s motion on the merits. Rather *155than denying Farmhand’s contempt motion, the senior judge should have arranged for reassignment of the motion to another judge for decision on the merits.

Accordingly, the order denying Farmhand’s motion for contempt is reversed and the motion remanded to the chief district judge for reassignment to another judge for decision on the merits.

Reversed.
<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 CytoGenix, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 1O-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securitjes and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Malcolm H. Skolnick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 infoImation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Malcolm H. Skolnick
Malcolm H. Skolnick
Chief Executive Officer


November 14, 2002
#### Early *v.*Conn.

No. 13248.

July 15, 1940.

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. “The maker of promissory notes given for the purchase of land of which such maker holds undisturbed possession under a bond from the vendor, conditioned to make to the former a good and sufficient title to the land upon payment of the notes, can neither voluntarily rescind the contract of purchase nor defeat the collection of the notes, upon the ground that the vendor has not in fact a good title to the land in question, without showing clearly that there is a paramount outstanding title against the vendor, and also proving fraud upon his part, or that he is insolvent, or' a non-resident, or else proving other facts which would authorize equitable interference with the carrying out of the contract as made.” *Black*v. *Walker,*98 *Ga.*31 (26 S. E. 477).

*(а)*The above rule will not be varied on account of the fact that during the progress of the litigation the court appointed a receiver to take charge of the property.

(б) The facts relied on therefor do not show fraud, and the case does not otherwise fall within any of the exceptions indicated in *Black*v. *Walker,*supra.

(c) It was not error to sustain the demurrer.

2. The cross-action of plaintiff in error as amended does not show any right to rescind.

3. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the contract complained of in the motion for new trial.

*(а)*It was not a contract declared upon, but was merely evidence on the issues before the court. Compare *Simpson*v. *Charters,*185 *Ga.*592, 597 (196 S. E. 31).

(б) Nor was it a good objection that the contract recited that the exact amount of interest now due on a specified series of notes should be calculated and ascertained by a certain party.

4. It was not erroneous to direct the verdict, or to refuse a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*661
      *Mrs. Charles L. Camp*and *Joe M. Lang,*for plaintiff in error.

*Leon <8 Dean Covington,*contra.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0612 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0612

**2001/612/EC: Commission Decision of 20 July 2001 amending for the fifth time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 2216) **

*
Official Journal L 214 , 08/08/2001 P. 0051 - 0060 *

Commission Decision

of 20 July 2001

amending for the fifth time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2001) 2216)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/612/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 95/176/EC(2), and in particular Article 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/392/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of the United States of America officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of eight additional equine semen collection centres, and the need to change certain details of two other equine semen collection centres.

(3) Furthermore, the competent authorities of the United States of America officially informed the Commission that the approval has been withdrawn from the two centres Honor Bright Farm (00CA009-EQS) and Burchett Training Center (98GA002-EQS).

(4) It is appropriate to amend the list in the light of new information received from the non-member country concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 July 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 117, 24.5.1995, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 138, 22.5.2001, p. 22.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6760 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6760

To prohibit United States contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel 
 on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
                  Change, and the Green Climate Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. 
    Alford, Mr. Burlison, and Mr. Smith of Missouri) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit United States contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel 
 on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
                  Change, and the Green Climate Fund.

    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 ``No Tax Dollars for the United 
Nations Climate Agenda Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
              INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THE UNITED 
              NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE 
              GREEN CLIMATE FUND.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds made available 
to any Federal department or agency may be used to make assessed or 
voluntary contributions on behalf of the United States to or for the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), or the Green Climate 
Fund.
                                 <all>
```
f10k2011a1ex10xxxviii_yida.htm



Exhibit 10.38




 


[English Summary]







Yida (Fujian) Tourism Group Limited Loan Agreement







Borrower/Party A: Yida (Fujian) Tourism Group Limited


Lender/Party B: Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited, Yongtai Branch







Amount of loan: RMB 70 million







Purpose of loan: Yunding Park tourism destination development and construction







Loan period: 7 years







Interest: 6.40% per annum







Repayment schedule:



	
Repayment date

	
Repayment amount (RMB million)

	
Repayment date

	
Repayment amount (RMB million)


	
4/15/2011

	
0.5

	
10/15/2014

	
2


	
7/15/2011

	
1

	
1/15/2015

	
6.5


	
10/15/2011

	
1

	
4/15/2015

	
2


	
1/15/2012

	
2.5

	
7/15/2015

	
2.5


	
4/15/2012

	
1

	
10/15/2015

	
2.5


	
7/15/2012

	
1.5

	
1/15/2016

	
7


	
10/15/2012

	
1.5

	
4/15/2016

	
2


	
1/15/2013

	
3

	
7/15/2016

	
2.5


	
4/15/2013

	
1.5

	
10/15/2016

	
2.5


	
7/15/2013

	
2

	
1/15/2017

	
8


	
10/15/2013

	
2

	
4/15/2017

	
1


	
1/15/2014

	
5.5

	
7/15/2017

	
1


	
4/15/2014

	
1.5

	
10/15/2017

	
1


	
7/15/2014

	
2

	
12/15/2017

	
3












Guaranty: Secured by credit guarantee of its subsidiary, Fujian Jintai Tourism Developments Co., Ltd., and the right to collect resort ticket sales at Yunding Park as additional collateral.







Jurisdiction:


Laws of China







Dispute:


If there is any dispute between the parties, either party can resolve the dispute by the courts of Fuzhou City.







Date of the Agreement:


Jan. 26, 2011


 


 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period April 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                                                                                                                               
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr
|Name:              |  | David K. Spohr                                                                                                                                                                
|Title:             |  | Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration(Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,Managing Owner ofFutures Strategic Trust
|                   | 
|Date:              |  | August 12, 2008
#### Brian L. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard IVES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 15-56885, 16-55131

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Brian L. Brown, Pro Se

Diana L. Pauli, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Garrett Joseph Coyle, USLA— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these appeals, Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions challenging two prison disciplinary hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, *see Tablada v. Thomas,*533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm in both cases.

In Appeal No. 15-56885, Brown challenges the findings of the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) that he committed (1) assault and threatening bodily harm, and (2) assault. In Appeal No. 16-55131, Brown again challenges the first finding. The record reflects that both of Brown’s disciplinary hearings comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the DHO’s findings. *See Superintendent v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); *Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 563-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject Brown’s challenges to the district court’s handling of his petitions.

Brown’s motions to file the untimely and oversized reply brief are granted. The *548Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 39 in Appeal No. 15-56885, and at Docket Entry No. 38 in Appeal No. 16-55131.

AFFIRMED.

**

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