alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-8349.

#### Lucille R. Kelley, Petitioner v. Texas Workforce Commission, et al.

559 U.S. 993, 130 S. Ct. 1740,

176 L. Ed. 2d 216,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2213,

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 09-938.

#### D.Clark Ogle, Liquidating Trustee of the Agway Liquidating Trust, Petitioner v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland.

559 U.S. 1092, 130 S. Ct. 2373,

176 L. Ed. 2d 767,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3558.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 586 F.3d 143.
srer_ex1021.htm


EXHIBIT 10.21




TERMINATION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT







Effective as of April 1, 2011, upon execution of the Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2011 by and between General Cannabis, Inc., a Nevada corporation and Douglas Francis, that certain Consulting Agreement dated as of November 19, 2010, as amended on February 22, 2011, is terminated.  Neither party will have any further obligations thereunder.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Termination of Consulting Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first written above.








	
“Company”

	 	
“Consultant”


	  	 	  
	
General Cannabis, Inc.,

	 	  
	
a Nevada corporation

	 	  
	  	 	  
	
/s/ James Pakulis

	 	
/s/ Douglas Francis


	
By:

	
James Pakulis

	 	
By:

	
Douglas Francis


	
Its:

	
CEO
August 4, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EX PARTE VASTIE SHAK IRA COLEMAN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00916

- CR

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Source Date:

June 2013

Air Quality Planning Branch, AQPSD

Area Designations for National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

8-HOUR OZONE

LAKE

Tuscan BuUes A

0 50 100 150 200

___________________Mu

GREAT

Antelope Valley

and

Western Mojave Desert

San

Santa Cr

NORTH

CENTRALCOAST

COAST

______ Unclassified/Attainment

~

Air Basin

County

SOUTH COAST

SAN DiEGO
EXHIBIT
      32.1





Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer 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 West Bancorporation, Inc. on Form 10-Q
      for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas E. Stanberry,
      Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of West Bancorporation, Inc.,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (1) The report fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of West
      Bancorporation, Inc.





October
      30, 2008





/s/
                Thomas E. StanberryThomas
                E. StanberryChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer




32
No. 09-770.

#### The Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, et al., Petitioners v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, et al.

559 U.S. 992, 130 S. Ct. 1738,

176 L. Ed. 2d 213,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2303.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 74 Mass. App. 500, 908 N.E.2d 772.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Lance Boxer, 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: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. By: /s/ Lance BoxerLance BoxerChief Executive OfficerMay 12, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to IPC Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by IPC Acquisition
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 09-8599.

#### Lee Dell Nation, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1013, 130 S. Ct. 1895,

176 L. Ed. 2d 376,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2586.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2











Certification
of Chief Financial Officer of ULURU Inc.


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 ULURU Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the
undersigned officer of ULURU Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18
U.S.C. 1350), that to 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
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.











Date: August 14, 2009
            
            /s/
      Terrance K. WallbergTerrance
      K. WallbergVice
      President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 NOVEMBER 10, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-12004

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 99-00045-CR-HL-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MINNIE PEARL THOMAS,

a.k.a. Nick,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(November 10, 2010)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Minnie Pearl Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial

of her motion for a reduction of sentence. Thomas was convicted for one count of

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of distribution of cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Pearl to two

mandatory life sentences as a career-offender. She sought a reduction pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706, which provides a two-level

reduction in the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. After

review, we affirm Thomas’ sentence.

1

Sentences based on career-offender status or on a statutory minimum are not

based on a range that has “subsequently been lowered” within the meaning of §

3582(c)(2), and district courts are not authorized to reduce a sentence under that

statute. See United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2008);

United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2008). Thomas

concedes she was sentenced as a career offender, and her prior convictions for drug

offenses resulted in mandatory minimum life sentences. See 21 U.S.C. §§

841(b)(1)(A), 851. Consequently, any adjustment to her advisory guideline range

We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority 1

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). 

2
would not affect the length of her prison terms and she is ineligible for a sentence

reduction.

AFFIRMED.

3
Fourth Amendment to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.59 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
 PATRIOT COAL CORPORATION 

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Patriot Coal Corporation (the “Company”) adopted the Patriot Coal Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), as amended; 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to clarify (i) the definition of “Change in Control” and (ii) the maximum
individual share limit for each employee per offering period; 
 WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of the Plan permits the Company to amend
the Plan from time to time, subject only to certain limitations specified therein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended
as follows: 
 I. 
 Section 2.3(b) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(b)
during any period of twelve consecutive months, individuals who were directors of the Board at the beginning of such period, together with any new director (other than (i) a director nominated by a Person who has entered into an agreement with the
Company to effect a transaction described in paragraph (a), (c) or (d), or (ii) a director nominated by any Person (i) who has announced or threatened a proxy contest or (ii) who publicly announces an intention to take or to consider taking actions
(including, but not limited to, an actual or threatened proxy contest) which if consummated would constitute a Change in Control) whose nomination for election by the Company’s shareholders was endorsed by a vote of at least three-fourths (3/4)
of the directors then still in office who either were directors at the beginning of the period or whose election or nomination for election was previously so endorsed, cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the Board;”

 II. 

Section 4.1(e) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“(e) No Employee shall be granted an Option to the extent the number of shares of Stock that may be purchased for such Employee
(when taken together with all other options exercisable by such Employee under any other stock purchase plan of the Company or a Subsidiary that is qualified under Code Section 423) in the aggregate during a calendar year exceeds twenty-five
thousands dollars ($25,000) in Fair Market Value of such shares of Stock determined on the Offering Date for the Offering Period with respect to which the purchase is to be made. In addition to any limits provided








 
hereunder, the maximum number of shares of Stock that may be purchased for any Employee during an Offering Period shall not exceed then thousand (10,000).” 

In all other respects, the Plan, as amended, is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Fourth Amendment to the Plan as of January 1, 2010. 

 

			
	PATRIOT COAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Joseph W. Bean
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q of  Mission  West
Properties,  Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended March 31, 2005
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  each of Carl E.  Berg,  Chairman  of the Board  and Chief  Executive
Officer  of the  Company,  and Wayne N. Pham,  Vice  President  of  Finance  and
Controller of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to the best of
his knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


---------------------------------------------------
Carl E. Berg
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
May 9, 2005


---------------------------------------------------
Wayne N. Pham
Vice President of Finance and Controller
May 9, 2005

     This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  or  otherwise  required,  be  deemed  filed by the
Company  for  purposes  of ss. 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as
amended.
No. 09-9390.

#### Doris Ann Hall, Petitioner v. Merit Systems Protection Board.

559 U.S. 1078, 130 S. Ct. 2141,

176 L. Ed. 2d 740,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3299.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

*741Same case below, 342 Fed. Appx. 603.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Terra Nostra Resources Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald C. Nicholson, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  January 23, 2006

By:

/s/ Donald C. Nicholson



Name:  Donald C. Nicholson

Title:    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
* The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4113

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Tong Thanh Robert Nguyen, * [UNPUBLISHED] also known as Robert Nguyen, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 4, 2005 Filed: October 10, 2005

___________ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tong Thanh Robert Nguyen pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the district court * sentenced him to 135 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Nguyen argues the district court should have departed downward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 because the seriousness of his criminal history was overstated, and he should be resentenced under United States v. Booker ,-2- 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory at his pre-Booker sentencing. As to the first issue, Nguyen cannot challenge his 135-month prison sentence because he specifically agreed to it in his plea agreement. SeeUnited States v. Reyes-Contreras , 349 F.3d 524, 525 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). As to the second issue, Nguyen did not raise a Sixth Amendment objection below, and he cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability the district court would have imposed a lower sentence under advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 552-53 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), petition for cert. filed , __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
No. 09-9765.

#### Mitchell Swain, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1085, 130 S. Ct. 2136,

176 L. Ed. 2d 754,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3136.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 417.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4933 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4933

To prevent acid mine drainage from sulfide mining into the Great Lakes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2006

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prevent acid mine drainage from sulfide mining into the Great Lakes.

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

SECTION 1. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to protect water quality in the Great 
Lakes from the harmful effects of acid mine drainage.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL PERMITS.

    No Federal permit may be issued to an entity seeking to operate a 
sulfide mine within 5 miles of any of the Great Lakes unless the permit 
applicant demonstrates that there will be no acid mine drainage into 
any of the Great Lakes as a result of the sulfide mining operation for 
which the permit is sought.

SEC. 3. GREAT LAKES DEFINED.

    In this Act, the term ``Great Lakes'' has the same meaning given 
that term in section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Contol 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10645

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

THEODORE E. OKECHUKU,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-481-1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Theodore E. Okechuku is charged with conspiracy to unlawfully 

distribute and dispense hydrocodone outside the scope of professional practice 

and not with a legitimate medical purpose in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

Because the magistrate judge found there was probable cause to believe that 

Okechuku continued to illegally dispense hydrocodone while on pretrial 

release, his pretrial release was revoked and he was ordered detained. See 18 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
No. 15-10645

2

U.S.C. § 3148(b). The district court denied Okechuku’s motion to revoke the 

magistrate judge’s detention order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Okechuku’s 

second motion for reconsideration was denied after a hearing by the magistrate 

judge, and his third motion for reconsideration was denied by the district court 

because Okechuku noted no new evidence or change in circumstances that had 

not previously been considered by the court. 

Okechuku appeals the denial of his third motion for reconsideration. He 

argues that because he can no longer practice medicine or write prescriptions, 

he no longer poses a danger to the community. He disagrees with the 

magistrate judge’s finding that, given the fact that he previously violated the 

release conditions set by the court, he is unlikely to abide by any condition or 

combination of conditions for release. See § 3148(b). He also argues that the 

district court failed to reevaluate the factors for release listed in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(g) before denying his motion. 

After reviewing the record, we have determined that the district court’s 

denial of Okechuku’s third motion for reconsideration is supported by the 

proceedings below and the factual basis of the decision is not clearly erroneous. 

See United States v. Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 223, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1990). Moreover, 

given the finding that Okechuku was unlikely to abide by any condition or 

combination of conditions for release, see § 3148(b)(2)(B), it was not necessary 

for the district court to reevaluate the § 3142(g) factors for release before 

denying Okechuku’s motion. The district court’s denial of Okechuku’s third 

motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10645 Document: 00513180491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2015
Subsidiaries of Lindsay Corporation
 OwnershipPercentageLindsay Manufacturing, LLC  Nebraska
    
    100%Lindsay Structures, LLC  Nebraska
    
    100%Lindsay Sales Holding Company, LLC  Nebraska
    
    100%Lindsay Sales & Service, LLC  Nebraska
    
    100%Irrigation Specialists, Inc.  Delaware
    
    100%Lindsay International Sales & Service, LLC  Nebraska
    
    100%Barrier Systems Sales & Service, LLC  Nebraska
    
    100%Watertronics, LLC  Wisconsin
    
    100%Lindsay Real Estate Holdings, LLC  Delaware
    
    100%Lindsay Transportation, Inc.  Nebraska
    
    100%Barrier Systems, Inc.  California
    
    100%Safe Technologies, Inc.  California
    
    100%Barrier Systems, LLC  Delaware
    
    100%Lindsay International Holdings, BV  Netherlands
    
    100%Lindsay Europe SAS  France
    
    100%Lindsay Manufacturing Africa Ltd.  South Africa
    
    100%Lindsay America do Sul Ltda.  Brazil
    
    100%Snoline S.P.A.  Italy
    
    100%Lindsay (Tianjin) Industry Co., Ltd.  China
    
    100%Lindsay Foreign Sales Corporation  Virgin Islands (Inactive)
    
    100%Lindsay  Irrigation Pty., Ltd.  Australia (Inactive)
    
    100%LMC Professional Supply, Inc.  Delaware (Inactive)
    
    100%Lindsay International Sales Corporation  Delaware (Inactive)
    
    100%
 70
Order filed January 15, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00927-CV

____________

STEPHANIE LYNN CHATHAM, Appellant

V.

BLAKE DWAYNE DOOLAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 328th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCV-241661

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due January 2, 2019. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before February 8, 2019, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM