alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus LENNIE JOHN, a/k/a Uncle L, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-198, CA-97-768) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lennie John, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Henry Wright, Monica Kaminski Schwartz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 467 U.S. 1208 (1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections afterreceiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 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
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------


               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 Touchstone Software, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the "Report"), I, Jason K.
Raza, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, to the best of 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/S/ Jason K. Raza
--------------------------------
Jason K. Raza
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
Helga HUFFMAN, Appellant, v. COMMERCE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3692

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 67 (Thursday, April 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 16255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8121]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6573]


Fine Arts Committee Notice of Meeting

    The Fine Arts Committee of the Department of State will meet on 
April 30, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in the Henry Clay Room of the Harry S. 
Truman Building, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will 
last until approximately 3 p.m. and is open to the public.
    The agenda for the committee meeting will include a summary of the 
work of the Fine Arts Office since its last meeting on November 13, 
2008 and the announcement of gifts and loans of furnishings as well as 
financial contributions from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.
    Public access to the Department of State is strictly controlled and 
space is limited. Members of the public wishing to take part in the 
meeting should telephone the Fine Arts Office at (202) 647-1990 or send 
an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f0d3a3d2b2a2119040f1c3b2e3b2a61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7f5c2c5d3d2d9e1fcf7e4c3d6c3d299d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a> by April 23 to make arrangements to 
enter the building. The public may take part in the discussion as long 
as time permits and at the discretion of the chairman.

    Dated: March 2, 2009.
Marcee Craighill,
Secretary, Fine Arts Committee, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-8121 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-35-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2590-2591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-780]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuances

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to 
the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          License No.                           Name/address                            Date reissued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
019573NF.......................  Longron Corporation dba Time Logistics,     September 18, 2008.
                                  5415 Hilton Avenue,Temple City, CA 91780.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2591]]

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. E9-780 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
```
KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER CO., L.P.A., Appellant, v. Virginia N. BERNET and Charles Schwab Trust Company of Delaware, as Trustee of the James A. Bernet 8/9/01 Trust fbo Virginia N. Bernet, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2747

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
​
Exhibit – 10.6
​
​
SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION FOR
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
AGREE REALTY CORPORATION
(Effective as of February 3, 2022)
​


​
​
​
Annual Board Member Retainer:
​
Non-Employee Director:$132,000
​
Audit Committee Chair:$6,000 (in addition to non-employee retainer)
​
Lead Independent Director: $6,000 (in addition to non-employee retainer)
​
50% of the above amounts are payable in restricted stock awards with one year vesting. The remaining 50% of the above amounts are payable, at each director’s election, either quarterly in cash or in additional restricted stock awards with one year vesting.
​
Other:
​
Directors traveling from outside the Bloomfield Hills, Michigan area are reimbursed for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attending meetings of the Board or any committees thereof.
​
Directors who are employees or officers of the Company do not receive any compensation for serving on the Board or any committees thereof.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3127 KELLY S. JENNINGS,

Petitioner,

v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in CB7521070026-T-1. ON MOTION ORDER Kelly S. Jennings moves to compel the Merit Systems Protection Board to file a corrected certified index. The Social Security Administration moves for an extension of time to submit its response to the motion. Jennings also moves for extensions of time to file an opening brief. The Board filed a corrected certified index on May 26, 2009. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion to compel the Board to file a corrected certified list is moot. The motions for extensions of time are granted. Jennings' brief is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order. FOR THE COURT 

## JUN - 9 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Jan Horbaly Clerk U.S. eau



# THEFIVIltbr

JUN 0 9 2009 Date

cc: Kelly S. Jennings Austin M. Fulk, Esq. Jai I 106.,J.:g.,t
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         740,510
<SECURITIES>                                 9,371,079
<RECEIVABLES>                                  241,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    190,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,796,774
<PP&E>                                         455,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,368,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,291,396
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,856
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,938,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,368,991
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,443,255
<CGS>                                          484,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,324,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (167,588)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (713,660)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (713,660)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (713,660)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Rebekah WERTH, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, CIRCUIT 19 MARTIN, UNIT 88510, Appellee.

No. 4D17-0183

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

**I, Saturnino S.Fanlo,** certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of KKR Financial Corp. (the “Corporation”);

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Corporation as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The Corporation’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Corporation and have:

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Corporation, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in thisreport any change in the Corporation’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Corporation’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theCorporation’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The Corporation’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Corporation’sauditors and the audit committee of the Corporation’s board of directors:

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Corporation’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)          Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Corporation’s internal controls over financialreporting.

Date: March 29,2006
|        | /s/ SATURNINO S. FANLO                                                          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **Saturnino  S. Fanlo*Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)*** |

 

----
**Exhibit 10.30**

 

**Description of Arrangements with WilliamBensten**

 

Mr. Benstenserves as the Senior Vice President of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc.(the “Company”).  For the year endedDecember 31, 2004, Mr. Bensten received $200,000 in base salary and $200,000 inincentive bonus payment.  In addition,Mr. Bensten received an additional bonus of approximately $845,000 resultingfrom an arrangement he entered into with the Predecessor Company.  Under this arrangement Mr. Bensten wasentitled to receive bonuses in an amount equal to 4% of distributions tostockholders including our distribution payable to our pre-initial publicoffering stockholders.  This agreementterminated with respect to any new bonus obligations immediately upon executionof our initial public offering.  Pursuantto the Company’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan, on December 14,2004, Mr. Bensten received a restricted stock grant of 112,500 shares of theCompany’s Class A common stock, which shares have a four year vesting period.

 

----
# --------**-Ar.~ -~** **~...-** 

### -:::;;;: .-: NEWTON A VIA TION

EAS Task Force decision comments
."_\,,; 

### A q: 45 As an owner ofaFBO in Lewistown, I am somewhat dismayed withthe decisionto change airline service to Gulfstreamfrom Great Lakes Airlines. Ihave contacted othervendors including Richland Aviation in Sidney, Prairie Aviation in Glasgow, Brad at the Miles City FBO and Havre Flying Service and have found that they feel the same way. In apress release from Miles Citynew paper it appears that their Airport Board was not happy. Other airport boards are yet to be contacted to see what theirthoughts are.
Thebasic arguments are that the airport and communitybusinesses in some communities were left out ofthe process. The "airportbusinesses" Ihave talked to are happy with their relationships with Great Lakes and all are especiallyhappy that "theypaytheirbills ontime". It does not appear that the task force weighed the economic impact ofchanging airlines and did not ask for opinions from affected airportbusinesses. Under Gulfstream most ofthe new business will go to Billings.

The news papers reported a 6-1 vote in favor ofGulfstreambythe EAS Taskforce. Ithink Great Lakes Airlines got abad deal. In the real world I do not think it is as "one sided" as it appeared in the newspaper. Does the general public realize the difficulties ofdelivering scheduled service to small communities in Montana? Ithink not, and this is where many ofthe complaints come from. Weather, runway maintenance, connecting flights and all sorts ofdifficulties associated with airline service in rural areas are not always considered. Those ofus who work with Great Lakes daily see their service continuing to improve and Ithink they would continue to improve over time.

The routes proposed by Gulfstream, at least for Lewistown, have proven unsuccessful. The news paper reported that the people of Montana want to go to Billings. As I understand it, some of Great Lakes routes do go to Billings. My understanding is that subsidized service is to connect rural areas to larger hubs and not for personal
convemence.
Those ofus who work the closest with Great Lakes Airlines are happy with them and feel we were not considered in this process. I hope you will reconsider the taskforce recommendations. At least four out of seven businesses at affected airports and some ofthe airport boards do not agree with this decision by the EAS Taskforce. I feel that Great Lakes shouldbe retained for EAS Montana.

Donald H Newton

- Owner Lewistown Airport 410 Skyline Drive Lewistown, MT 59457 406-538-8150 -Office 406-538-8166 -Fax 406-366-7892 -Cell newton@lewistownairport.com

Exxon Fuel 100, Jet A Aircraft Maintenance Aerial Crop Spraying 

# EJkonMobil**~** ".,
----

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report. |

|   | APRIL 13, 2011 |                                       |
|--------|----------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |           |                                       |
|   |           | /s/ MICHAEL GOLDBERG                       |   |
|   |           | MICHAEL GOLDBERG                           |
|   |           | ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER             |
|   |           | (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL |
|   |           | FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)          |
GULF HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Fred BRUNOLI, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2945

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Denied.
**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 Winland Electronics Inc. (Winland)
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lorin E. Krueger,
      Chief Executive Officer of Winland, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Winland.














Date:
                May 15, 2007
            /s/
                Lorin E. KruegerLorin
                E. KruegerPresident
                and Chief Executive
                Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kendall William JACOBS, Appellant.

No. 03-4073.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 19, 2004.

Decided May 21, 2004.

*71Michael Mills Hobart, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kendall William Jacobs, Pekin, IL, pro se.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kendall W. Jacobs pleaded guilty to willfully failing to pay child support, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). The district court1 declined to impose a split sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5Cl.l(d)(2), sentenced Jacobs to 11 months imprisonment and 1 year supervised release, and ordered restitution of $67,979.39. On appeal, Jacobs’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting that the district court abused its discretion in not granting Jacobs a split sentence.

We find that the district court understood its authority to impose a split sentence, and thus its discretionary decision not to do so is unreviewable. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); *United States v. Smotherman,*326 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review district court's exercise of discretion in setting sentence within properly determined Guidelines range), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 293, 157 L.Ed.2d 203 (2003); *United States v. Garcia-Ortiz,*310 F.3d 792, 793-94 (5th Cir.2002) (district court’s discretionary refusal to impose split sentence under § 5Cl.l(d) does not fall within criteria listed in § 3742(a)). We also have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 10.48
 Las Vegas Sands Corp.
2004 EQUITY AWARD PLAN
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 Agreement Award Date Company Participant
 R E C I T A L S:
 Plan
 Committee Restricted Stock
Award
  Grant of Restricted Stock Award Restricted Shares
 Incorporation by Reference, Etc
 Terms and Conditions
 Vesting




---



##### 



Taxes
 Certificates
 Effect of Termination of Employment or Services
   Status as Employee or Consultant
  2




---



##### 



Rights as a Stockholder; Dividends provided that
 Restrictive Legend
  Transferability
 Compliance with Legal Requirements
  3




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Notices
  
   Severability
 No Rights to Employment
 Bound by Plan
  4




---



##### 



Beneficiary
 Successors
 Entire Agreement; Effect of Employment Agreement, etc.; Amendment
 GOVERNING LAW; CONSENT TO JURISDICTION
 JURY TRIAL WAIVER
  5




---



##### 



Headings
 Signature in Counterparts
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Las Vegas Sands Corp.By:Name:Title:[type in name of participant]
  6