alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reginald D. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY, INCORPORATED; City of Rock Hill, Defendants-Appellees, and BH Management; Paces River Apartment; Clifford Berinsky; Thomas Howard; Brownlee Law Firm PLLC; Dina D. Biggs; Alyssa Pruitt; Land Star Transportation Logistic, Incorporated, Defendants.

No. 17-1252

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

*786Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.:

Reginald Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the' recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his amended civil complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied through the filing of an amended complaint that alleges sufficient facts in support of Evans’ claims, we conclude that the order Evans seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand with instructions to allow Evans to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED*
AMENDMENT AGREEMENT







THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is made on the 25th day of August, 2010





BETWEEN:



PLAY LA INC., with registered offices at Mossack Fonseca & Co.,

Akara Building, PO Box 3136, 24 de Castro Street, Wickhams

Cay 1, Road Town, Tortola, BVI



(hereinafter referred to as the Purchaser)



OF THE FIRST PART

AND:



Paul Sandells, Businessman, of 7 Douglas Bader Close,

Lutterworth, Leicestershire, United Kingdom  LE17 5RX



(hereinafter referred to as the Vendor)

OF THE SECOND PART



WHEREAS:



A.

The Purchaser and the Vendor entered into an Agreement dated January 18th, 2010 whereby the Vendor has agreed to sell the Poker News Headlines Undertaking to the Purchaser; and

B.

The Purchaser and the Vendor hereby wish to amend certain terms of the Agreement dated January 18th, 2010;

C.

The Purchaser and the Vendor mutually agree to amend the Purchase Price to the sum of USD $7,500.



NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:



1.

The Purchase Price means the sum of USD $7,500. (Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars)



2.

The Vendor hereby sells and assigns to the Purchaser and the Purchaser hereby purchases from the Vendor the Headlines Undertaking for the Purchase Price, as the same is required to be adjusted under this Agreement and allocated as follows:



|                              |   |      
|----------------------------- | - | -----
|Domain and development        | $ | 1,000
|Website content               |   | 4,000
|Website forum and subscribers |   | 1,000
|Goodwill                      |   | 1,500
|                              | $ | 7,500
|                              |   |      

3.

The Vendor agrees to return the original share certificate number 227 in the amount of 58,824 common shares of Play LA Inc. upon execution of this Amendment Agreement to the Purchaser for cancellation.





---



4.

The Purchaser agrees to pay the Vendor USD $7,500 by wire transfer payment, directly to the Vendors Bank coordinates, for the Headlines Undertaking, in full, within 2 business days of receipt of cancellation notice and original share certificate.



5.

The payment of $7,500 USD will be full and final payment in regards to the Agreement dated January 18, 2010, and for any and all related matters connected with said Agreement.





IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Purchaser and the Vendor have executed this Amendment Agreement as of the date first mentioned above.







EXECUTED by Play LA Inc. in the presence of:



_/s/___Maribel__________________________

_/s/ David Hallonquist____________________

Signature

DAVID HALLLONQUIST



__Maribel Jordan_______________________

Print Name



____________________________________

Occupation









SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of:



___/s/ K Sandells  ______________________

__/s/ P Sandellls______________________

Signature

PAUL SANDELLS



___K Sandells________________

Print Name



___Teacher ___________________________

Occupation







---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justice Devon PRICE, a/k/a Kithe, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4707

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Raymond C. Tarlton, TARLTON POLK PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*776Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Justice Devon Price seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. He argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court did not specifically inform him that he had the right to argue for a dowmward variant sentence and further argues that the court erred in failing to grant a downward variance. The Government has filed a response brief, requesting that the court dismiss the appeal as barred by Price’s waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement in the district court record and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Price knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and waived his right to appeal and that the sentencing issue Price seeks to raise on appeal falls squarely within the compass of his waiver of appellate rights.* Accordingly, we 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*

*

To the extent any error resulted from the district court’s failure to explicitly inform Price at the Rule 11 hearing that he had a right to argue for a downward variant sentence or in statements made by the court at arraignment, the errors were harmless.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

             CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Nine Months Ended  Nine Months Ended
                                                                  September 30, 2001 September 30, 2000
                                                                  ------------------ ------------------
<S>                                                               <C>                <C>
Net (loss) income................................................       $ (18)             $   14
Add:
   Interest expense..............................................         157                 172
   Income tax (benefit) expense and other taxes on (loss) income.         (10)                  8
                                                                        -----              ------
       Earnings as defined.......................................       $ 129              $  194
                                                                        =====              ======
Interest expense.................................................       $ 157              $  172
                                                                        -----              ------
       Fixed charges as defined..................................       $ 157              $  172
                                                                        =====              ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...............................        .82x               1.13x
                                                                        =====              ======
</TABLE>

   For the period ended September 30, 2001, there was a $28 million deficiency
in the coverage of earnings as defined, to fixed charges as defined.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Terry G. Rousseland Sharon C. Kaiser, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of his or her knowledge, the Annual Report of Cornerstone Growth &Income REIT, Inc. on Form 10-K for the twelve month period ended December 31,2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Kfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Cornerstone Growth & Income REIT, Inc.

 
|                           |   | /s/ TERRY G. ROUSSEL                                                                     |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 14, 2008 |   | Terry G. Roussel                                                                         |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer)                                   |
|                      |   |                                                                                     |
|                      |   | /s/ SHARON C. KAISER                                                                     |
| Date: March 14, 2008 |   | Sharon C. Kaiser                                                                         |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer  and  Principal Accounting Officer) |

 

----
#### Sabrina Renee BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Toneka THORNTON; Carolyn Elizabeth Black; Adele Laurie Adkins, a/k/a Pop Star; Stephanie Albright; Karline Mosley; Felecia Renee Gray; Nazlah Unique Thornton; Monica Duvall Catalpa; Nekeziah Robertson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1318

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

*820Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for faitee to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to file an amended complaint. 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 AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1999
SECOND QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,285
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           8,825
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    484,687
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        338,349
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 874,970
<DEPOSITS>                                     482,216
<SHORT-TERM>                                    64,160
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,477
<LONG-TERM>                                    228,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 874,970
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,470
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               14,985
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                27,455
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,080
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,375
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 131
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,802
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,802
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,632
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.85
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,418
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,604
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      154
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,602
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,602
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JUSTIN T. FRIEND, DOC #C09751, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4657

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 8, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5921 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5921

  To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to change the 
      permissible age variation in health insurance premium rates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2016

 Mr. Bucshon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to change the 
      permissible age variation in health insurance premium rates.

    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 ``State Age Rating Flexibility Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. CHANGE IN PERMISSIBLE AGE VARIATION IN HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 
              RATES.

    Section 2701(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300gg(a)(1)(A)(iii)), as inserted by section 1201(4) of Public 
Law 111-148, is amended by inserting after ``3 to 1 for adults 
(consistent with section 2707(c))'' the following: ``or, for plan years 
beginning on or after January 1, 2018, 5 to 1 for adults (consistent 
with section 2707(c)) or such other ratio for adults (consistent with 
section 2707(c)) as the State involved may provide''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Form of Novartis Promissory Note Extension 
 PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION
AGREEMENT 
 This PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of June 1,
2012, between Emisphere Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) and [MHR entity] (“Creditor”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Promissory
Note (as defined below). 
 WHEREAS, Maker and Creditor are parties to that certain Promissory Note, in the principal sum of
$[500,000], dated as of June 8, 2010 (the “Promissory Note”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties to the
Promissory Note desire to extend the Maturity Date. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, Maker and Creditor hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Extension. The Maturity Date is
extended from June 8, 2012 to September 26, 2012, subject to the terms and conditions set forth under this Agreement. 

2. References; No Further Modifications; No Defaults. All references in the Letter Agreement, by and between Maker and MHR
Institutional Partners IIA LP, dated June 8, 2010, to the “Novartis Promissory Note” shall be deemed to be references to the Promissory Note as extended hereby. Except as extended hereby, the Promissory Note shall remain unchanged and
in full force and effect. Maker, by its execution of this Agreement, certifies that as of the date hereof, no default under the Promissory Note has occurred and is continuing, including as a result of this Agreement. 

3. Reaffirmation. Maker hereby renews, reaffirms, ratifies and confirms the terms and provisions of the Promissory Note and
acknowledges and agrees that the Promissory Note remains in full force and effect without impairment and without modification (except as specifically provided herein), and that no rights or remedies of the Creditor have been waived or shall be
deemed to have been waived by virtue of the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto. 
 4. Governing
Law. The validity, interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the state of New York applicable to agreements made and to be performed entirely within such state.

 [The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year
first above written. 
  

									
	MAKER:	 		 	EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
				
		 		 	By:	 	 
		 		 		 	 Name:
 Title:
	 	









									
	CREDITOR:	 		 	[_____________________________________]
				
		 		 	By:	 	[____________________],
		 		 		 	its General Partner
				
		 		 	By:	 	 
		 		 		 	 Name:

Title:
	 	 Mark H. Rachesky

President


 [Signature Page – Promissory Note Extension Agreement]
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran. On May 6, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12959, imposing more comprehensive sanctions on Iran to further respond to this threat. On August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059, consolidating and clarifying those previous orders. The President took additional steps pursuant to this national emergency in Executive Order 13553 of September 28, 2010; Executive Order 13574 of May 23, 2011; Executive Order 13590 of November 20, 2011; Executive Order 13599 of February 5, 2012; Executive Order 13606 of April 22, 2012; Executive Order 13608 of May 1, 2012; Executive Order 13622 of July 30, 2012; Executive Order 13628 of October 9, 2012; Executive Order 13645 of June 3, 2013; Executive Order 13716 of January 16, 2016, which revoked Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, 13645, and provisions of Executive Order 13628; Executive Order 13846 of August 6, 2018, which revoked Executive Orders 13716 and 13628; Executive Order 13871 of May 8, 2019; Executive Order 13876 of June 24, 2019; Executive Order 13902 of January 10, 2020; and Executive Order 13949 of September 21, 2020.

The actions and policies of the Government of Iran—including its proliferation and development of missiles and other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, its network and campaign of regional aggression, its support for terrorist groups, and the malign activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its surrogates—continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. 

For these reasons, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in Executive Order 12957. The emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, in connection with the hostage crisis. This renewal, therefore, is distinct from the emergency renewal of November 9, 2021. 

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2022-04907

Billing code 3395-F2-P