alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40374 Conference Calendar

__________________
MASSEY L. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHERMAN POLICE DEPT; BELL, Dr., GRAYSON SHERIFF DEPT; JOE NEAL SMITH, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-18

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Massey L. Moore filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in January 1995, alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs following his arrest on August 12, 1990, for exposing another person to a venereal disease. Moore alleged that the defendants failed to test him to determine the type of infection and to prescribe him proper medical treatment.No. 95-40374 -2- Moore alleged that following this failure to treat him he was diagnosed with syphilis and treated nine months later in May 1991, after he was subsequently in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Because no specified federal statute of limitations exists for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits, federal courts borrow the forum state's general or residual personal injury limitations period. Rodriguez v. Holmes , 963 F.2d 799, 803 (5th Cir. 1992). In Texas, the applicable period is two years. Id . Under federal law, the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that he ha been injured and who has inflicted the injury. Moore v. McDonald , 30 F.3d 616, 620-21 (5th Cir. 1994). Moore's civil rights suit was filed well past the time the relevant statute of limitations accrued. At the point that Moore was diagnosed nine months after his arrest of a venereal disease which he suspected was a different disease from the one which he believed he had at the time of his arrest, Moore was on notice of the injury he sustained and the people responsible for it. Moore's allegation of ignorance regarding the dangerousness of untreated syphilis does not halt the limitations. See Longoria v. Bay City , 779 F.2d 1136, 1139 (5th Cir. 1986). The limitations period for filing suit regarding Moore's claim ended in May 1993. See Rodriguez , 963 F.2d at 803. The district court did not err in dismissing Moore's suit with prejudice as barred by the relevant limitations period.No. 95-40374 -3- Because the district court warned Moore that additional frivolous suits could result in sanctions, we inform him that the warning applies as well to the filing of frivolous appeals. E.g. , Coghlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988); Clark v. Green , 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Synthetech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,  2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Gary
Weber, Chief Financial 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
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





2.           The
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Gary
      A. WeberGary
      A. WeberVice
      President, Finance,Chief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      12, 2008
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Appellant, v. Sandra J. WILLIS, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.2




Independent Accountant’s Report
 
 
 Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (as Depositor)
 One Wachovia Center
 301 South College Street, DC-7
 Charlotte, NC 28288
 
 U.S. Bank Trust National Association (as Trustee)
 Corporate Trust Department
 100 Wall Street
 New York, NY 10005
 
 
 Re:
STRATSTrust For DaimlerChrysler NA Holding Securities, Series 2004-10 (the “Trust”)
  Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 We have examined assertions of Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (the “Depositor”) and U.S. Bank National Association, (the “Trustee” and Together with the Depositor, the “Management”) that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as of September 26, 2003, as supplemented by a series supplement dated as of August 6, 2004 (together, the “Trust Agreement”), in respect of the STRATS Trust For DaimlerChrysler NA Holding Securities, Series 2004-10 (the “Trust”), during the period covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Annual Report”).  Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management’s assertions based on our examination.
 
 Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor’s and the Trustee’s compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
 
 In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and Management’s assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
 
 /s/ Aston Bell, CPA
 
 New York, New York
 March 22, 2010
Jeffrey SIMMONS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0876

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40381 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FRANCISCO JAVIER CASTRO-SUAZO,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15 -CR- 1097 -1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Javier Castro- Suazo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castro- Suazo ha s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40381 Document: 00513872592 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2017No. 16

- 40381

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40381 Document: 00513872592 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2017
#### FRANKLIN SAYINGS CORPORATION and Franklin Savings Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-5121.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 11, 2004.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 20, 2004.

R. Pete Smith, Principal Attorney, Jonathan A. Margolies, of Counsel, McDowell, Rice, Kansas City, MO, Jerry Stouck, Peter J. Skalaban, Jr., of Counsel, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Luke P. Levasseur, Principal Attorney, Jeanne E. Davidson, David M. Cohen, Daniel D. McClain, of Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

[PLATINUM LOGO]                                   2 World Financial Center
                                                  225 Liberty Street, 23rd Floor
                                                  New York, NY 10281

                                                    Tel:  212-238-9600

March 12, 2004

SHN Enterprises, Inc.
Attn:  Steven H. Newman
24342 La Masina
Calabasas, CA 91302

Dear Steve:

         Reference is hereby made to the letter dated March 1, 2002, as amended
(the "Letter Agreement"), by and between The St. Paul Companies, Inc. and SHN
Enterprises, Inc. ("SHN Enterprises") regarding the terms and conditions of the
consulting arrangement between SHN Enterprises and Platinum Underwriters
Reinsurance, Inc. (the "Company"). This letter (the "Letter Amendment") amends
the Letter Agreement to replace Section 4(a) in its entirety with the following:

(a)      ANNUAL. DURING THE CONSULTING PERIOD, YOU WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE
         AN ANNUAL INCENTIVE PAYMENT (THE "ANNUAL INCENTIVE") WITH (i) A TARGET
         INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY EQUAL TO $440,000 (THE "TARGET") AND (ii) A
         MAXIMUM TARGET INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY EQUAL TO TWO HUNDRED PERCENT
         (200%) OF THE TARGET. THE OBJECTIVES FOR YOUR ANNUAL INCENTIVE WILL BE
         DETERMINED BY THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
         PLATINUM UNDERWRITERS HOLDINGS, LTD. IN CONSULTATION WITH YOU AND THE
         BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PLATINUM UNDERWRITERS HOLDINGS, LTD.

         All other terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement remain in full
force and effect. This Letter Amendment is intended to be a binding obligation
upon the Company and you. If this Letter Amendment correctly reflects your
understanding, please sign and return one copy to me for the Company's records.

                                       Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance, Inc.

                                       By: /s/ Michael D. Price
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Michael D. Price
                                           President and Chief Underwriting
                                           Officer

The above Letter Amendment correctly reflects our understanding, and I hereby
confirm my agreement to the same.

SHN Enterprises, Inc.

By: /s/ Steven H. Newman
    ------------------------------
    Steven H. Newman
    President
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of A.D., a Child

No. 06

- 22

- 00083

- CV Appeal from the 307th District Court of
Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2021

- 696

- DR ). Memorandum Opinion delivered
by Chi ef Justice Stevens

, Justice van Cleef

and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indic ated her inability to pay costs of appeal.

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 2 1 , 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
On August 22, 2013, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) submitted an Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (2010 S02f-SIP). 

Documents were included with the 2010 S02 I-SIP to clarify the requirements in Section 128 of the federal 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The NDEQ is requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

approve these documents into the Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP}. The documents to be included 

are: 

1. Section 49-1493(13) ofthe "Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act"; and 

2. Chapter 2 of Title 4- Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission 

In addition, Nebraska is submitting the following attached document as clarification to the 2010 S02 I-SIP with 

regards to the requirements of Section 128 and further requests that this document be approved into the 

Nebraska SIP: 

Title 116- Department of Environmental Control Code of Ethics ofthe Nebraska Administrative Code 

The NDEQ requests that the EPA amend the Nebraska SIP to include the referenced documents, to the extent 

that they are deemed approvable. 

Attached is a searchable pdf version of Title 116- Department of Environmental Control Code of Ethics. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions regarding this clarification, please contact 

Brian Kozisek, Grants, Planning, and Outreach Unit Supervisor at (402) 471-6624 or me at (402) 471-4299. 

Shelley Schneider 

Air Quality Division Administrator 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

1200 N Street, Suite 400 

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

PH: 402-471-4299 

Jl Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

1
Document

EXHIBIT 10.43




FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
GPI SAVINGS PLAN
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2015)


WHEREAS, Graphic Packaging International, LLC (the “Company”) maintains for the benefit of its employees the GPI Savings Plan (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, Section 13.1 of the Plan authorizes the Board of Directors of Graphic Packaging Holding Company (the “Board”) to amend the Plan at any time; and


WHEREAS, the Board has delegated to the Retirement Committee of Graphic Packaging International, LLC (the “Retirement Committee”) the responsibility to make certain amendments to the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company has acquired the assets (the “Transaction”) of Americraft Carton, Inc. (the “Target”); and


WHEREAS, in connection with the Transaction, employees of the Target became employees of the Company effective as of July 1, 2021; and


    WHEREAS, the Retirement Committee deems it desirable to amend the Plan to recognize employees’ service with the Target for purposes of the Plan.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, effective as of July 1, 2021, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.Subsection 1.101 of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence to the end thereof:


An Employee’s period of service with Americraft Carton, Inc., to the extent not otherwise counted hereunder, will be taken into account in determining his Year of Eligibility Service, provided that such Employee was employed by Americraft Carton, Inc. as of the close of business on the date immediately preceding the closing date of the acquisition of the assets of Americraft Carton, Inc. by the Controlling Company.


2.Subsection 1.102(d) of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence to the end thereof:


An Employee’s periods of employment with Americraft Carton, Inc. will be taken into account in determining his Years of Vesting Service, provided that such Employee was employed by Americraft Carton, Inc. as of the close of business on the date immediately preceding the closing date of the acquisition of the assets of Americraft Carton, Inc. by the Controlling Company.












1



EXHIBIT 10.43

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Retirement Committee has approved this Fourteenth Amendment to the GPI Savings Plan this 10th  day of November, 2021.




GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC RETIREMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS


    
By:          /s/ Stephen R. Scherger                    
            Stephen R. Scherger


By:          /s/ Brad Ankerholz                    
            Brad Ankerholz


By:          /s/ Chuck Lischer                    
            Chuck Lischer


            






2
SGR/26338654.1
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2864-2865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00911]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 10279]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``The Paston Treasure: Microcosm of the 
Known World'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``The Paston Treasure: Microcosm of the Known World,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Yale Center for 
British Art, New Haven, Connecticut, from on or about February 15, 
2018, until on or about May 27, 2018, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest.

[[Page 2865]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal 
Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2a1b7b1a6bbbdbce0e6e7eb92a1a6b3a6b7fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a796f697e636564383e3f334a797e6b7e6f246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of 
December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

Alyson Grunder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-00911 Filed 1-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Paul ACHILLEA, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3617

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Wheeler CANADY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4163

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IRMA ARRIAGA,

 Appellant,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY

AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00163-CV

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Pecos County, Texas

(TC# P-10,610-112-CV)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the motion of Irma Arriaga, Appellant, to dismiss this appeal for

the reason that the parties have settled all matters in controversy in the underlying lawsuit. Appellee

has not objected to the motion and there is no indication that dismissal would prevent Appellee from

seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We therefore

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs pursuant

to the settlement agreement.

KENNETH R. CARR, Justice

October 2, 2008

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of QNB Corp. (the
"Company for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas J. Bisko, President and CEO, of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by ss. 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. To my knowledge, 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 period covered by the Report.


Date:    May 17, 2004                                   By: /s/ Thomas J. Bisko
         ------------                                   -----------------------
                                                        Thomas J. Bisko
                                                        President and CEO

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 provide to QNB Corp. and will be retained by
the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6647

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLIE LEE FOREMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00004-H-1; p:05-cv-00021-H) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 16, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie Lee Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Charlie Lee Foreman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foreman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Kawaun Marquese SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4776

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.