alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/4/96TENTH CIRCUIT

AART DYKHUIZEN AND CENTRAL

MACHINE, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TSUGAMI CORP. AND REM SALES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Case No. 95-4112

(D.C. 93-C-932W)

(District of Utah)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before EBEL, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

 

Plaintiffs-Appellants Aart Dykhuizen and Central Machine, Inc. appeal the district court’s

judgments dismissing their complaint against Defendants-Appellees Tsugami Corp. and REM

Sales, Inc. with prejudice. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its well-written orders

accompanying the judgments at issue.

After a de novo review of the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, we
2

conclude, as did the district court, that the plaintiffs’ claim on appeal, whether construed as one

for breach of warranty or for breach of contract, is based on a sale of goods under Utah’s

enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code. See Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-105(1). As such, it

is time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-725. 

See Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co., 681 P.2d 214, 216 (Utah 1984) (“[W]here the

Uniform Commercial Code sets forth a limitation period for a specific type of action, this

limitation controls over an older, more general statute of limitations.”). Thus, the district court’s

dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint was proper.

Also before the court is the motion of REM Sales to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal for lack

of appellate jurisdiction. In its motion, REM Sales argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to

hear the plaintiffs’ appeal because claims are still pending before the district court against

Defendant Alta Machine Tool. Under Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846 (10th Cir. 1986)

(per curiam), REM Sales’s motion is without merit. In Bristol, we held that the district court’s

failure to enter an order dismissing unserved defendants from the case prior to the entry of the

judgment did not foreclose appellate jurisdiction because the unserved defendants were never

made parties to the underlying district court action. Id. at 847; see also Insurance Co. of N. Am.

v. Dealy, 911 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir. 1990) (“[U]nserved defendants are not parties for

purposes of Rule 54(b) and a judgment does not lack the finality necessary for appeal merely

because claims against unserved defendants are unresolved.”).

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint against

the defendants, and we DISMISS REM Sales’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal for lack

of appellate jurisdiction.
3

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
Lindsey FRENCH v. CLAIBORNE PARISH POLICE JURY and Claiborne Parish Sheriff

NO. 2018-C-1470

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 20, 2018

Denied.
CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of China
Yingxia  International,  Inc. for the quarter  ended June 30,  2006,  I, Yingxia
Jiao,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of China  Yingxia
International, Inc. Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:


1.   Such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2006,
     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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the
     period ended June 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects,  the
     financial   condition   and  results  of   operations   of  China   Yingxia
     International, Inc.



Dated: December 12, 2006


                                    CHINA YINGXIA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Yingxia Jiao
                                    ------------------------
                                    Yingxia Jiao
                                    Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the annual Report of Hitor Group, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10 K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ken Martin, CEO and CAO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.   //ken martin _______________________________ Ken Martin, CEO, CAO Dated:  January 16, 2012
IN the INTEREST OF T.F. and K.W., children.

K.H., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4383

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
exv10w6






Exhibit 10.6




AMENDMENT TO THE

REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED

FLEXIBLE STOCK PLAN




AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1998




     WHEREAS, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (the “Company”) established the
Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated Flexible Stock Plan (the “Plan”) to enhance the ability
of the Company to reward and provide stock based incentives to its key employees; and



     WHEREAS, the Company’s shareholders previously approved the Plan and amendments thereto; and



     WHEREAS, on January 25, 2007, the Board of Directors of the Company approved an amendment to
the Plan, subject to shareholder approval, to increase the total number of shares authorized for
issuance under the Plan by 3,000,000 shares.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:



     1. Effective upon the date of approval of this amendment by the Company’s shareholders,
Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:




     3.1 Number of Shares. The number of Shares which may be issued or sold or for which
Options, SARs or Performance Shares may be granted under the Plan shall be 9,260,077 Shares.
Such Shares may be authorized but unissued Shares, Shares held in the treasury, or both.



     2. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated hereby adopts the foregoing
amendment this 23rd day of May, 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

A. Greig Woodring
	 	 
	 

	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60087

Conference Calendar

 

JERRY COOK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:97-CV-179-BrS

- - - - - - - - - -

August 27, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Cook, federal prisoner # 03509-043, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion. He

argues that the court erred in its determination that Cook’s

challenge to his conviction could be brought only pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. 

“[A] petition under § 2241 attacking custody resulting from

a federally imposed sentence may be entertained only where the

petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 
No. 99-60087

-2-

is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his

detention.” Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111,

1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Cook has not shown that a § 2255 motion would have been

inadequate to address the challenges to his conviction. 

Therefore, his proposed pleading could not be construed as a

§ 2241 habeas petition. The district court’s judgment dismissing

Cook’s motion is AFFIRMED. 

Cook’s motions for permission to supplement the appeal,

permission to amend the brief on appeal, permission to supplement

the record, and for a writ of mandamus are DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
by Chief Executive Officer

In
connection with the Annual Report of VSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report),
I, Raffaele M. Branca, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the Company.

|                      |                         | 
|--------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|Date: March
 24, 2009 |                         | 
|                      |                         | 
|                      | /s/ Raffaele
 M. Branca | 
|                      |                         | 
|                      | Raffaele M.
 Branca    
|                      | President
 and CEO     

A signed original of this
written statement 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.

---
State ex rel. Jock COLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1645

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 14, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

*981Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 158 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 638 

[Report No. 113–218] 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

to require that any new national wildlife refuge may not be established 

except as expressly authorized by statute. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Mr. FLEMING (for himself, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. JONES, 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. POSEY, 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. AMODEI, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 

Additional sponsors: Mrs. LUMMIS and Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 638 RH

A BILL 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to require that any new national wildlife 

refuge may not be established except as expressly authorized by statute. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 638 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Wildlife Ref5 uge Review Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW NA7 TIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4(a) of the National Wild9 life Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

10 668dd(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(6) The Secretary may not establish any national 

12 wildlife refuge except as expressly authorized by a law en13 acted after January 3, 2013.’’. 

14 (b) EXISTING REFUGES NOT AFFECTED.—The 

15 amendment made by subsection (a) shall not apply with 

16 respect to any national wildlife refuge established on or 

17 before January 3, 2013. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 158 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 638 

[Report No. 113–218] 

A BILL 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Adexcept as expressly authorized by statute. national wildlife refuge may not be established ministration Act of 1966 to require that any new 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



INTERVIDEO, INC.

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



I, Steve Ro, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, the Quarterly Report of InterVideo,
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of InterVideo, Inc.



Dated: November 15, 2004



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steve Ro                                  
|Steve Ro Chief Executive Officer and President
Leslie Danielle DEWITT v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01704-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: October 2, 2018 Closed: December 13, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         179,515
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (820)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               289,517
<PP&E>                                       1,698,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,080)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,054,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          274,183
<BONDS>                                        750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     722,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,054,621
<SALES>                                        130,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,275
<CGS>                                           98,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   820
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (53,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,353
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,790)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,790)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
Isaac HILLERY, DOC #522443, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Johnnie JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1611

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 24, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 969 

To prohibit conditioning licensure of a health care provider upon participation 

in a health plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, 

Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit conditioning licensure of a health care provider 

upon participation in a health plan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Practice Free5 dom Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HEALTH CARE PROVIDER LICENSURE CANNOT BE 

7 CONDITIONED ON PARTICIPATION IN A 

8 HEALTH PLAN. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

10 Human Services and any State (as a condition of receiving 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 969 IH

1 Federal financial participation under title XIX of the So2 cial Security Act) may not require any health care pro3 vider to participate in any health plan as a condition of 

4 licensure of the provider in any State. 

5 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘health plan’’ 

7 has the meaning given such term in section 1171(5) 

8 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(5)), 

9 and includes a basic health program established 

10 under section 1331 of the Patient Protection and 

11 Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), a quali12 fied health plan offered by a qualified nonprofit 

13 health insurance issuer under the Consumer Oper14 ated and Oriented Plan (CO–OP) program under 

15 section 1322 of such Act, a qualified health plan of16 fered under a health care choice compact under sec17 tion 1333 of such Act, a multi-state qualified health 

18 plan offered under section 1334 of such Act, or 

19 other health plan offered under title I of such Act. 

20 (2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.—The term 

21 ‘‘health care provider’’ means any person or entity 

22 that is required by State or Federal laws or regula23 tions to be licensed, registered, or certified to pro24 vide health care services and is so licensed, regVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:32 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H969.IH H969

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 969 IH

1 istered, or certified, or exempted from such require2 ment by other statute or regulation. 

3 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the mean4 ing given such term for purposes of title XIX of the 

5 Social Security Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS