alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

| 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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:              May 12,      2008                                    |   | By:  /s/ Stephen L.      Price                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |   | Stephen      L. Price, President, Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |   | And      Chairman of the Board of Directors                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6345

KEVIN HERRIOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WAYNE MCCABE, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:19-cv-00803-DCN)

Submitted: August 25, 2021 Decided: September 21, 2021

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Herriott, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Herriott seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the 

recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Herriott’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Herriott has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. In addition, we deny Herriott’s motions for a stay and for production of documents. 

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
Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement - Drew H. Webb



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 to 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is dated as of February 25, 2010, by and between Farmer Bros. Co., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Drew H. Webb (“Webb”).

 WHEREAS, Webb is currently employed by the Company pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of
March 3, 2008 as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Webb desire to amend the Agreement. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows: 
 “Duties: Webb shall serve as Executive Vice-President of Sales and Marketing of the
Company. As such his general responsibilities shall include oversight responsibility for the Company’s sales, marketing, strategic planning and corporate development functions, subject to such changes in such responsibilities as the
Company’s CEO shall make from time to time. Webb shall also perform such other executive duties as are directed by the Company’s CEO or Board of Directors (“Board”). Webb shall devote to the Company’s business substantially
all of his working time. Service as a director or equivalent of other for-profit organizations shall require approval of the Board.” 
 2. No change is being made in Webb’s compensation or benefits under the Agreement, and in consideration therefor Webb agrees that the changes in his title and responsibilities as set forth in
Section 1 above do not constitute “Good Reason” for resignation under Section 7B of the Agreement. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered on the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	FARMER BROS. CO.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Roger M. Laverty III

		 	Roger M. Laverty III
		 	Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	WEBB
	
	 /s/ Drew H. Webb

	Drew H. Webb


  

 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Johnson, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 56]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter Benitez, J.), rendered April 22, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was clearly meritless (see, *People v Coleman,*268 AD2d 303, *lv denied*95 NY2d 794; *People v Clarke,*251 AD2d 7), counsel’s refusal to support it did not require appointment of new counsel *(People v Simpson,*238 AD2d 193). In deciding the motion, the court was not influenced by counsel’s comments, since they were made after the motion had already been denied *(see, People v Nawabi,*265 AD2d 156, *lv denied*94 NY2d 865; *People v Smith,*253 AD2d 668, *lv denied*92 NY2d 986; *People v Rodriguez,*189 AD2d 684, *lv denied*81 NY2d 892). The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation *(see, People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404; *People v Rodriguez, supra).*Defendant was afforded the lowest plea and sentence available to him as a second felony offender. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1034
SUKHDEV SINGH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-003-021) Submitted: July 12, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sukhdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh , No. A76-003-021 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Foster, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 850]

On appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered May 14, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *Ish*to 3V2 years, the application by assigned counsel to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly frivolous *(People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833) is granted to the extent of relieving counsel without compensation, assigning Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trin*431ity Place, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10006, as new counsel, and enlarging the time to re-perfect the appeal to the September 2001 Term of this Court.

While we express no opinion with respect to the merits, or lack thereof, of any possible issue, counsel’s submission is inadequate to demonstrate that a conscientious examination of the record and the applicable law has been performed *(see, People v Reyes,*231 AD2d 478; *People v Santiago,*188 AD2d 290). Counsel has failed to give a recitation of the underlying facts as they were developed at the suppression hearing and failed to make reference to the speedy trial motions. Since our own review cannot substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel *(People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906), assignment of new appellate counsel is required *(see, People v Moore,*208 AD2d 357; *People v Daniels,*197 AD2d 486). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
#### Michael Lewis, Respondent, v Donald Baker et al., Defendants, and Sears Roebuck and Company, Inc., Appellant. (And Third-Party Actions.)

[720 NYS2d 26]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered September 2, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Sears Roebuck and Company, Inc.’s motion to delete so much of a prior order of the same court and Justice, dated May 25, 1999, which, *sua sponte,*directed the deposition of non-party Earl Records, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted, and that part of the May 25, 1999 order directing the deposition of Mr. Records vacated.

There is no dispute that Mr. Records is a non-party to this action and a non-resident of this State, currently residing in Indiana. It is also clear that Mr. Records has not been served *381with a notice of deposition or a subpoena, and that plaintiff has not moved for a commission or letters rogatory. Indeed, unless Mr. Records voluntarily complies with a notice of deposition, if one is ever served, plaintiffs remedy lies within the mechanisms set forth in CPLR 3108 *(see also, Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp.,*103 AD2d 230, 235). It was, however, at this juncture, an improvident exercise of discretion and beyond the court’s authority to direct Mr. Records to appear in the Bronx County Courthouse for a deposition. We do not reach the issue of Mr. Records’ purported status as an expert for defendant Sears Roebuck and Company. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form
10-Q Quarterly Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gary L. Carano                                                                                          
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Gary L. Carano, Chief Executive Officer of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
Ruthen James WEEMS III, Appellant v. BAYLOR, SCOTT & WHITE, HILLCREST MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee

No. 06-17-00018-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Date Submitted: April 19, 2017 Date Decided: May 11, 2017 Rehearing Overruled May 31, 2017

Ruthen James Weems, Pro Se, McLennan County Jail #144318, 3201 EHwy 6, Waco, TX 76705, Attorneys for appellant.

Ben Selman, Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC, PO Box 1470, Waco, TX 76703-1470, Attorneys for appellee.

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

Ruthen James Weems, III, alleged that a nurse at Baylor Scott & White, Hillcrest Medical Center, knowingly authored a false report that a patient, Ernest Bradshaw, had been shot. According to Weems, this false report was used to criminally charge him for the attempted murder of Bradshaw. After concluding that Weems *294was asserting a health care liability claim, the trial court dismissed it on the ground that Weems had failed to file an expert report. *See* TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351 (West 2017).

Weems appeals,1 arguing that he was not required to file an expert report because he did not assert a healthcare liability claim.2 Weems' petition clearly demonstrated that his complaint was the knowing fabrication of an allegedly false medical report. Although there is a split among the courts of appeals, the Waco Court of Appeals has concluded that claims involving alteration and fabrication of medical records are not healthcare liability claims and, therefore, do not trigger the expert report requirement of Section 74.351.3*Benson v. Vernon* , 303 S.W.3d 755, 759 (Tex. App.-Waco 2009, no pet.). Accordingly, we sustain Weems' point of error.

We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

1

Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. *See*Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (West 2013). We follow the precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. *See* Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.

2

"We review a trial court's order on a motion to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with the expert report requirements under an abuse-of-discretion standard." *Benson v. Vernon* , 303 S.W.3d 755, 757 (Tex. App.-Waco 2009, no pet.).

3

Under the current state of the law, we disagree with the conclusion reached by our sister court in *Benson* in 2009.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       6
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
1997 Form 10-K Balance  Sheets and  Statements of Operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                 95,600,634
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                46,272,067
<RECEIVABLES>                            584,660
<ASSETS-OTHER>                           249,107
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        47,105,834
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                       0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                273,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                      273,821
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                       0
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                    221,745
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                    221,745
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                      0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                         0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                        0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                       0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>             (49,376,943)
<NET-ASSETS>                          46,832,010
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                      5,305,161
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      4,677,506
<OTHER-INCOME>                           174,632
<EXPENSES-NET>                         1,731,109
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                8,426,190
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                  92,648
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>             (6,129,993)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                  2,388,845
<EQUALIZATION>                                 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>              8,356,836
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                 184,638
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                 18,130,885
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                        0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                    0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>               (24,283,512)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                        0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                      0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                        0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                     0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                    759,160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                        1,731,109
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                  58,973,767
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                     314.44
<PER-SHARE-NII>                            28.64
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                   (27.58)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                           0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                (106.00)
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                           0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                       209.93
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                            0.029
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                         0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                           0


</TABLE>
[Cite as Toledo v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 542, 2009-Ohio-4117.] 

THE CITY OF TOLEDO ET AL., APPELLEES, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as Toledo v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 542, 2009-Ohio-4117.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of Lima v. State. 

(No. 2008-0975 — Submitted July 14, 2009 — Decided August 20, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-07-1261, 

2008-Ohio-1957. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

Lima v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 155, 2009-Ohio-2597, 909 N.E.2d 616. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 LANZINGER, J., dissents. 

__________________ 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, 

and Sharon A. Jennings and Pearl M. Chin, Assistant Attorneys General, for 

appellant. 

Kalniz, Iorio & Feldstein Co., L.P.A., and Donato Iorio, for amici curiae 

Toledo Police Patrolman’s Association and Toledo Fire Fighters Local 92 in 

support of appellant. 

______________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GRANITE
BROADCASTING CORPORATION'S 1999 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,453,542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,017,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            66,381,544
<PP&E>                                      39,176,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             730,590,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,911,296
<BONDS>                                    303,874,304
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      210,708,780
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       181,425
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,902,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               730,590,855
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           149,846,955
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              134,792,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         (101,651,532)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          37,616,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             79,088,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                31,574,238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         47,514,489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                384,983
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                47,129,506
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>