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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6596

GREGORY L. ROSS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE SOLOMON,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Greensboro. Loretta Copeland Biggs, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00281-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Lynn Ross, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Lynn Ross seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

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

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
Larry Bernard PACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Affirmed.
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 1 of 11 PageID 175
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 2 of 11 PageID 176
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 3 of 11 PageID 177
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 4 of 11 PageID 178
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 5 of 11 PageID 179
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 6 of 11 PageID 180
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 7 of 11 PageID 181
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 8 of 11 PageID 182
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 9 of 11 PageID 183
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 10 of 11 PageID 184
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 26 Filed 06/24/03 Page 11 of 11 PageID 185
# C_2016410EN.01002401.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/24

---

Action brought on 17 September 2016 — Márquez Alentà v EUIPO — (Fiesta Hotels & Resorts) (representation of an ant)

(Case T-657/16)

(2016/C 410/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marc Márquez Alentà (Cervera, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Figurative EU mark (Representation of an ant) — Application for registration No 12 715 661

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2016 in Case R 1242/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the partial upholding of application R 1242/2015-1 and the opposition for certain goods applied for in Class 16 and services in Class 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the partial upholding of application R 1242/2015-1 and the opposition for certain goods applied for in Class 16 and services in Class 35;

| — | consequently, confirm the Opposition Division’s decision and therefore grant the trade mark for all of the goods and services applied for in Classes 16, 35, 41 and 43; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, confirm the Opposition Division’s decision and therefore grant the trade mark for all of the goods and services applied for in Classes 16, 35, 41 and 43;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 29 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-145531) and Amendment No. 353 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N for Variable Annuities for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.


 


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


September 29, 2016
# C_2016243EN.01004601.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/46

---

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)

(Case T-234/16)

(2016/C 243/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meißen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Meissen’ — EU trade mark No 3 743 663

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2016 in Cases R 2620/2014-4 and R 2622/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it finds against the applicant, that is to say in so far as the appeal lodged by the applicant for a declaration of revocation and applicant in the present proceedings was dismissed and in so far as, in addition, owing to the appeal filed by the proprietor of the trade mark, the contested decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the application for cancellation was also rejected in that respect; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it finds against the applicant, that is to say in so far as the appeal lodged by the applicant for a declaration of revocation and applicant in the present proceedings was dismissed and in so far as, in addition, owing to the appeal filed by the proprietor of the trade mark, the contested decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the application for cancellation was also rejected in that respect;

| — | in so far as the Court regards itself as authorised to make an alteration: declare EU trade mark No 3 743 663 to be revoked in its entirety — in the alternative or incidentally: refer the case back to EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as the Court regards itself as authorised to make an alteration: declare EU trade mark No 3 743 663 to be revoked in its entirety — in the alternative or incidentally: refer the case back to EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 38 Filed 10/20/03 Page 1 of 3 PageID 218
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 38 Filed 10/20/03 Page 2 of 3 PageID 219
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 38 Filed 10/20/03 Page 3 of 3 PageID 220
---

---

Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-67086, 333-101321,
333-99237 and 333-138719) pertaining to the Key Employee Share Incentive Plan (1996),
United States Share Incentive Plan (2000) and Employee Share Purchase Plan of RadView
Software Ltd., of our report dated July 13, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of RadView Software Ltd. included in this Annual Report
(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|                 |                                 
|---------------- | --------------------------------
|July 13, 2008    | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
|Tel Aviv, Israel | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer    
|                 | A Member of Ernst & Young Global



---

---
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




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of ClearPoint
Business Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2009 (the “Report”) 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.




CLEARPOINT
      BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.Date:
      November 16, 2009
              By:
              /s/ John
      G. PhillipsJohn
      G. PhillipsChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer)




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

JOHNNY LEE WEAVER, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________ 

2013-7130

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 12-1948, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Johnny Lee Weaver’s 

unopposed motion to withdraw his appeal, 

Case: 13-7130 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2013
WEAVER v. SHINSEKI 2

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s21 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 30, 2013

Case: 13-7130 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2013
Christopher MCRAE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4587

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

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 Annual Report of Avaya Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry K. McGuire Sr., Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Corporate Development, 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, to my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/GARRY K. MCGUIRE SR.Garry K. McGuire Sr.
      Chief Financial Officer and Senior
      Vice President, Corporate Development |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

August 12,
2003

---

QuickLinks
# C_2016090EN.01002502.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/25

---

Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM (Beaker)

(Case T-16/16)

(2016/C 090/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: H. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design ‘Beaker’ — Application for registration No 2683615-0001 and 2683615-0002

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2015 in Case R 1842/2015-3

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | recognise 17 April 2015 as the day of filing for Community design No 002683615-0001 and 002683615-0002; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognise 17 April 2015 as the day of filing for Community design No 002683615-0001 and 002683615-0002;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 45(1), Article 46(2) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002 read in conjunction with Article 36(1)(c) and Article 38(1) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 45(1), Article 46(2) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002 read in conjunction with Article 36(1)(c) and Article 38(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
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 FCStone Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal 1stquarter 2009 ending November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Dunaway, 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,
to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(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/ William J. Dunaway       
|William J. Dunaway           
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)

January 9, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2009 (the
"Report"), of Mac-Gray Corporation (the "Company") each of the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



This
certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

Dated: March 15, 2010

/s/ STEWART G. MACDONALD, JR.Name: Stewart G. MacDonald, Jr.
Title: Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 15, 2010

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHEAName: Michael J. Shea
Title: Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, 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-Q for the period      ended March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Equity Ventures Group      Inc. |

| By:                | /s/      Colette Kim                                                     |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     | Colette      KimChief      Executive OfficerChief      Financial Officer |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RYAN BARBOSA,

 Appellant,

v.

BRAZOS DE SANTOS PARTNERS, 

LTD.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00080-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of Bexar County, Texas1

(TC# 2020-CV-05325)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. It 

appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes no other 

order with respect thereto, and this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2021.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

1 We hear this case on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio. See TEX. R. APP.P. 41.3.
Exhibit 10.4


 





AMENDMENT NO. 3


TO 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 3  to the Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), dated September 26, 2016, is by and between
Drone Aviation Holding Corp., a Nevada corporation with an address 11651 Central Parkway #118, Jacksonville, FL 32224 (the
“Company”), and Kevin Hess (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Employment Agreement on May 18, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


 








WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement on October 2, 2015 (Hess Amendment No. 1); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement on April 27, 2016 (Hess Amendment No. 2); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish
to further amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below, with the understanding that all other provisions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain unchanged;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


	1.	Section 3 of the Employment Agreement- Term of Employment- is hereby extended  from May
18, 2018 to December 31, 2018.




 


	2. 	The terms and conditions of all other sections of the Employment Agreement shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this agreement as of the date first stated above.


 





	 	DRONE
    AVIATION HOLDING CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:
     	/s/
    Kendall W. Carpenter
	 	Name:
    	Kendall
    W. Carpenter
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Kevin Hess
	 	Name:
    	Kevin
    Hess