alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Aaron DOXIE, III, a/k/a Aharon Azaryah Nearyah Hakahan, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Jeffrey N. DILLMAN, Warden; Director Harold Clarke, Director, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7313

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

Aaron Doxie, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

*205Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Doxie, III, seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his motions for reconsideration.* We conclude that Doxie’s motions were in substance a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The district court’s denial of these motions is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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, 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 petition 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 Doxie has not made the requisite showing. Doxie’s motions challenged the validity of his convictions and should have been construed as a successive § 2254 petition. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2015); *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2254 petition. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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*

*

 Doxie confines his appeal to the district court’s ruling denying his motions on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claims.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 42 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 42

    To make minority party appointments to a Senate committee under 
    paragraph 3(c) of rule XXV for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 11 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

 Mr. Daschle submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To make minority party appointments to a Senate committee under 
    paragraph 3(c) of rule XXV for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

    Resolved, That the following shall constitute the minority party's 
membership on the Ethics Committee for the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 
or until their successors are chosen:
    Select Committee on Ethics: Mr. Bryan, vice chair, Ms. Mikulski, 
and Mr. Dorgan.
                                 <all>
```
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-292/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Meiland Azewijn BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (1)

(Excise duties - Mineral oils used in agricultural works - Directive 92/81/EEC - Article 8a - Marking in the Member State where released for consumption - Prohibition on marking in the Member State of use - Directive 95/60/EC)

(2004/C 262/06)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-292/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), by decision of 6 August 2002, received on 13 August 2002, in the proceedings Meiland Azewijn BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

----
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO

  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334

  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC,  as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-LC17 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”),   and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Global Growth Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned 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 to the best of my knowledge:



1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.





Date:  February 15, 2010

/s/    Joseph R. Rozelle



JOSEPH R. ROZELLE

Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Docket Number FAA-2014-0619
### Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk February 8, 2013

d0205 

# Order

February 8, 2013

145257 & (5)(6)

In re:

The Honorable Bruce U. Morrow SC: 145257

Judge, 3 rd 

## Circuit Court

Detroit, Michigan

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The

motion to seal the record is considered, and it is DENIED as moot. In the absence of a

stipulation waiving confidentiality, MCR 9.221 applies.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 248

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

should be reformed by April 15, 2001, in a manner that protects the

Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, that is revenue neutral,

and that results in a fair and less complicated tax code.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1998

Mr. BOYD (for himself and Mr. STENHOLM) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 should be reformed by April 15, 2001,

in a manner that protects the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, that is revenue neutral, and that

results in a fair and less complicated tax code.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—

5 (1) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is too

6 complicated for the average citizen to understand;
2

•HCON 248 IH

1 (2) honest taxpayers spend millions of dollars

2 and countless hours completing tax forms; and

3 (3) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is rid4 dled with loopholes that benefit special interests at

5 the expense of other taxpayers.

6 SEC. 2. REFORM OF TAX CODE.

7 (a) DEADLINE.—It is the sense of the Congress that

8 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 should be reformed

9 not later than April 15, 2001.

10 (b) GUIDELINES.—In developing a new tax code, the

11 following guidelines should be used:

12 (1) Reform of the Internal Revenue Code of

13 1986 must ensure adequate funding of the Federal

14 Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the

15 Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, and the

16 Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for current

17 recipients and future retirees.

18 (2) Such reform must result in a tax code that

19 is revenue neutral. No changes should be made that

20 would result in deficit spending.

21 (3) Such reform must result in a tax code that

22 is fair. All Americans should be treated fairly under

23 a new tax code.

24 (4) Such reform should promote economic

25 growth by encouraging savings and investment.
3

•HCON 248 IH

1 (5) Such reform must result in a tax code that

2 is less complicated. It should take less time for the

3 average American to complete his tax return under

4 a new tax code than is required under the Internal

5 Revenue Code of 1986.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 4.4

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                             THE ROUGE STEEL COMPANY
                          OUTSIDE DIRECTORS EQUITY PLAN
                (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2001)

     WHEREAS, Rouge Steel Company, a Delaware Corporation, adopted the Rouge
Steel Company Outside Director Equity Plan (the "Plan") for the purpose of
promoting the long term growth and profitability of Rouge Steel Company by
attracting and retaining non-employee directors of outstanding ability; and

     WHEREAS, pursuant to a reorganization in which Rouge Steel Company became
the wholly owned subsidiary of Rouge Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), the
Company assumed sponsorship of the Plan; and

     WHEREAS, the Plan has been amended from time to time, and was most recently
amended and restated effective April 1, 2001; and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of
shares of Company Class A Common Stock available for award, subject to approval
by the Company's shareholders.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows, subject to approval by the Company's shareholders:

     1. The second sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is amended effective May
15, 2002 to delete 200,000 and replace it with 250,000.

     2. Except as amended herein, the terms of the Plan remain in full force and
effect.

Dated:  June 4, 2002             ROUGE INDUSTRIES, INC.



                                          By:  /s/ William E. Hornberger
                                               -------------------------
                                               William E. Hornberger
                                          Its: Senior Vice President, Corporate
                                               Relations and External Affairs
Exhibit 10.1a


 


Amendment to the asset purchase agreement of the transfer of the
business operation “Periscope” dated of 25th May 2016


 


This following statement of the asset purchase agreement of the
transfer of the business operation “Periscope” dated of 25th May 2016 shall be clarified by this amendment:


 


Facts:


 


ROB Cemtrex Assets UG i. G. is named as “Purchaser”
and ROB Cemtrex Automotive GmbH i. G. is named as “Transferee EMS” in the sense of this agreement.


 


It is stated that the “Purchaser” will acquire the inventory
(raw, semi + finished goods) and the claim for return of goods of the prepayments and down payments which have been made by Periscope
and where no deliveries took place before the transaction date as ruled in the above mentioned agreement on page five in Section
B § 3 Working Capital / Inventory (including the subtopics a-c).


 


Clarification


 


At the moment of signing this agreement all parties involved were
clear that in case of the Section B § 3 Working capital / inventory not the “Purchaser” will acquire the material
and claim for return of goods, but the “Transferee EMS” was subject to acquire it.


 


Therefore it is agreed that the inventory and the claim of return
of goods have been sold to ROB Cemtrex Automotive GmbH i. G. solely.


 


Signed on: November 23, 2017


 


/s/ Sandra Bitter


Sandra Bitter as insolvency administrator on the assets of Periscope
GmbH


 


/s/ Saagar Govil


Saagar Govil as CEO of ROB Cemtrex Asset UG & ROB Cemtrex Automotive
GmbH


 



    	-1-
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATIONS 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; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report 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 Report.
 /s/ Charles D. JohnstonCharles D. JohnstonPresident & Chief Executive OfficerNovember 13, 2007
  (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, as of, and for the periods
presented in the Report.
 /s/ Anthony A. ScaleseAnthony A. ScaleseChief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting OfficerNovember 13, 2007
 A signed original of these written statements required by section 906 have been provided to
QualMark Corporation and will be retained by QualMark Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 99-11091 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-11091 Conference Calendar

LORENZO HALE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WILLIAM BAIRD, Sheriff; DUNCAN WHEELER, Jailer; RUNNELS COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; JAMES SCRIVENER, Jailer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CV-22-BG

- - - - - - - - - - April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lorenzo Hale, Texas prisoner # 776338, appeals from the dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Hale reurges the merits of his claims, but he does not address the magistrate judge’s holding that his complaint was untimely. Issues not raised or briefed on appeal are considered abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex. , 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993). TheNo. 99-11091 -2- record reflects that Hale’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. See Gonzales v. Wyatt , 157 F.3d 1016, 1019-20 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Hale’s request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. The magistrate judge’s dismissal of Hale’s complaint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as two “strikes” for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). If Hale accumulates three “strikes” under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
September 24, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HERITAGE GULF COAST PROPERTIES, LTD. AND SUMER S. PINGLIA, 

Appellants and Cross-Appellees

NO. 14-11-00976-CV

NO. 14-11-00980-CV V. 

SANDALWOOD APARTMENTS, INC., JAIKISHIN S. BHAGIA, NANIK S. 

BHAGIA, AND WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Appellees and Cross-Appellants

________________________________

This cause, appeals from the judgment signed August 3, 2011, was heard on 

the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the 

judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order that Heritage Gulf Coast Properties, Ltd. and Sumer S. Pinglia, 

jointly and severally, pay one-half of the total costs incurred by all parties to these

appeals, and that Sandalwood Apartments, Inc., Jaikishin S. Bhagia, Nanik S. 

Bhagia, and Woodbridge Properties, LLC, jointly and severally, pay one-half of 

the total costs incurred by all parties to these appeals.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Converted by EDGARwiz
















This confirms the agreement entered into by and between NutraFuels, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”) and Patrick Kilcooley an individual hereinafter referred to as the “Service Provider”. The Company and the Service Provider are referred to as the Parties.




Whereas, the Service Provider performed services (the “Services”) for the Company as described below and agreed to provide the Services solely in exchange for shares of the Company’s common stock.

 

Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree and acknowledge the following: 

 

I. From January 2015 - January 2018, (the “Term”) the Service Provider will as new business development agent making new B2B introductions and facilitating other business opportunities for Company during the Term.




II. The Services were provided in a professional manner in good faith and in accordance with good industry practice.




III. The Service Provider performed the services as an independent contractor. The Company did not and was not required to make social security, workers’ compensation or unemployment insurance payments on behalf of the Service Provider.




IV. Service Provider is a resident of Florida. 




V. As full payment for the Services, the Service Provider accepts 50,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock.




VI. The Company acknowledges receipt of the Services during the Term and the Service Provider acknowledges full payment for the Services as set forth herein.




The Services will be completed on December 31st 2016 (the “Effective Date”). By signing below, the Parties agree and acknowledge the above terms are binding upon them as the Effective Date.  




NutraFuels, Inc.




/s/ Edgar Ward                                 

By: Edgar Ward, Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Patrick Kilcooley                                  

Service Provider
#### IN RE: ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INCORPORATED, Debtor. *257David J. Pierce Trust U/A, dated February 23, 2011; Nancy P. Gettinger; Mary Evelyn Amstutz; Anne E. Franklin; John Paul Organ; Judith Lynn Organ; Mary Evelyn Amstutz Testamentary Trust, Creditors-Appellants, v. Alpha Natural Resources, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee.

No. 17-1339

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 8, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Augustus C. Epps, Jr., Clint A. Nichols, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Lori A. McMullen, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP, Sheridan, Wyoming; Peter M. Pearl, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants. Tyler P. Brown, Henry P. (Toby) Long, III, Justin F. Paget, HUN-TON & WILLIAMS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Patrick J.- Crank, CRANK LEGAL GROUP, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellees.

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

During the underlying Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy debtors moved pursuant to -11 U.S.C. § 365 to reject an agreement entered between John and Eunice Organ and one of the debtors’ predecessors. Suecessors-in-interest to the Organs (“Appellants”) objected, arguing that the agreement conveyed to the Organs an interest in property that is not subject to termination under § 365. In thorough, well-reasoned opinions, the bankruptcy court held that the debtors could reject the agreement, and the district court affirmed that decision. *See In re Alpha Natural Res., Inc.,*555 B.R. 520 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2016), *aff'd,*237 F.Supp.3d 369 (E.D.Va. 2017). Appellants now appeal the final order of the district court.

We review de novo the legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court and the district court, and we review for clear error the factual findings of the bankruptcy court. *In re Whitley,*848 F.3d 205, 207 (4th Cir. 2017). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments in light of these review standards, we find no error in either the lower courts’ legal conclusions or factual findings. We therefore affirm the final order of the district court substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the deci-sional process.

AFFIRMED