alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:05-cv-00569-L Document 3 Filed 04/11/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 26
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00569-L Document 3 Filed 04/11/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 27
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00569-L Document 3 Filed 04/11/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 28
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00569-L Document 3 Filed 04/11/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 29
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00569-L Document 3 Filed 04/11/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 30
**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 on Form 10-Q of PokerTek, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gehrig
      H. White, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and I, Christopher Daniels,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the
                Registrant.






Date:
      November 13, 2006


By: /s/
      Gehrig H. White


Gehrig
      H.
      White


Chief
      Executive Officer








Date:
      November 13, 2006


By: /s/
      Christopher Daniels


Christopher
      Daniels


Chief
      Financial Officer




A
      signed
      copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
      PokerTek, Inc. and will be retained by PokerTek, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

GRADY LYNN COX, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-186-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FMC--Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Grady Lynn Cox under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

July 11, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on July 26, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Cox’s

objections must be overruled, that the motion to dismiss should be

granted, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, for the

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

 It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby,

ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that respondent Jeter’s June 3, 2005,

motion to dismiss [docket no. 8] be, and is hereby, GRANTED.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00186-Y Document 12 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 57
2

 It is further ORDERED that Grady Lynn Cox’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby,

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED August 8, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00186-Y Document 12 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 58
* 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. 06-40122

Summary Calendar

BRYAN PATRICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY JANE J. BOYLE; ASSISTANT FEDERAL ATTORNEY JASON

HAWKINS; ADMINISTRATOR FRANK HOKE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 6:05-CV-32

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

State prisoner Bryan Patrick moves for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal following the dismissal, as

frivolous, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We construe the motion as a

challenge to the district court’s determination that the appeal is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-40122

-2-

not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202

(5th Cir. 1997).

Contrary to Patrick’s argument, the district court’s written

reasons sufficiently show that its certification decision was based

on its conclusion that the underlying complaint is frivolous. See

id. at 202 n.21. Patrick’s argument that denial of IFP status

would deny him access to the courts also is meritless. See Day v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir. 1986); Carson v.

Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1997).

Patrick’s motion does not directly challenge the district

court’s reasons for finding his complaint frivolous. Failure to

identify an error in the district court’s analysis has the same effect as though the appellant had not appealed at all. Brinkmann v.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se

litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

Accordingly, Patrick’s request for IFP status is denied, and the

appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Patrick is cautioned that the dismissal of his complaint by the district court and our dismissal of

this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.

1996). Patrick also is cautioned that if he accumulates three

strikes under § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action
No. 06-40122

-3-

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

See § 1915(g). 

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION

WARNING ISSUED.
Barry G. CURTIS v. Mia Simone CURTIS

2160315

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

Affirmed.
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1.3 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of June 4, 2003, by and among SeraCare Life
Sciences, Inc., a California corporation (the “Corporation”) and Michael F. Crowley II (“Crowley”). 
  
 WHEREAS, SeraCare, Inc. (the former parent of the Corporation) and Crowley entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated November 1, 2000 (as
amended by the First Amendment, the “Employment Agreement”). 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated August 24, 2001, SeraCare, Inc. assigned its rights and obligations under the Employment Agreement to the Corporation. 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain amendment to Employment Agreement, dated
November 6, 2001 (the “First Amendment”), the Corporation and Crowley extended the term of the Employment Agreement to September 25, 2004. 
  
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and Crowley wish to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties
hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 
  
 1.    Amendment to Employment Agreement.    Section 8 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by extending the term of the Employment Agreement until September 25, 2005. Except as amended
by this Amendment, the provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue for all purposes without interruption and the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 2.    Governing Law.    The validity of this Amendment and the interpretation
and performance of all of its terms shall be controlled by the substantive law of California, including California law concerning the interpretation and performance of contracts. 
  
 3.    Counterparts.    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, any
one of which need not contain the signatures of more than one party, but all such counterparts when taken together will constitute one and the same instrument. 
  









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered
as of the date set forth above. 
  
 CORPORATION: 
  
 SERACARE LIFE SCIENCES, INC. 
  
 By:    /s/    Jerry L. Burdick 
  
 Name:    Jerry L. Burdick 
  
 Title:    Secretary 
  
 CROWLEY: 
  
  
 /s/    Michael F. Crowley, Jr.

 Michael F. Crowley, Jr.
CERTIFICATION OF 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Desmond Ross, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Quantum Solar Power Corp (the Company), hereby 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: (i)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the fiscal Quarter ended September 30, 2008, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  By:/s/ Desmond RossName:Desmond RossTitle:Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:November 14, 2008 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. [ex321rtf002.gif]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0377

_______________

HON. ROBERT J. WHELAN, Presiding Respondent.

_______________ ORDER

_______________ Plaintiff, Frank Raiser, M.D. (“Raise r”) has moved the Court for an order granting leave to file the Montana Second Judicial District Court’s Response to St. James Healthcare’s Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control under seal pursuant to Mont. R. App. P. 10(7)(d). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that mo tion is GRANTED. The Montana Second Judicial District Court’s Response filed with this Court on June 28, 2024, shall be under seal without redaction. ST. JAMES HEALTHCARE, Petitioner,

v. MONTANA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, BUTTE-SILVER BOW COUNTY,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 28 2024

06/28/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0377
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SIME HICKSON, 24252-077,

Petitioner,

VS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:06-CV-0159-G

)

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

) 3:93-CR-054-G

) ECF

)

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds that

the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct,

and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that petitioner’s

motion for relief from judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) is DENIED.

March 22, 2010.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00159-G Document 6 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
Exhibit 31.2
 HORIZON LINES, INC
CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Lines, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ MICHAEL T. AVARAMichael T. AvaraSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
##### 



Equity Office Properties Trust
Statement of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in thousands)
 For the years ended December 31,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Income before income taxes, allocation to minority interests, income from
investments in unconsolidated joint ventures and gain on sales of real estate
    
    $
    99,050
    
    
    $
    205,598
    
    
    $
    340,463
    
    
    $
    440,863
    
    
    $
    342,072Plus Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    
    819,868
    
    
    
    833,393
    
    
    
    806,812
    
    
    
    795,179
    
    
    
    710,327Capitalized interest
    
    
    441
    
    
    
    4,648
    
    
    
    10,089
    
    
    
    21,447
    
    
    
    25,871Loan amortization cost
    
    
    11,857
    
    
    
    15,284
    
    
    
    6,492
    
    
    
    4,422
    
    
    
    14,622Fixed charges
    
    
    832,166
    
    
    
    853,325
    
    
    
    823,393
    
    
    
    821,048
    
    
    
    750,820Plus amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    1,764
    
    
    
    1,790
    
    
    
    1,490
    
    
    
    1,345
    
    
    
    1,165Plus distributed income of investments in unconsolidated joint ventures
    
    
    52,690
    
    
    
    66,829
    
    
    
    87,268
    
    
    
    129,753
    
    
    
    82,409Less capitalized interest
    
    
    (441
    )
    
    
    (4,648
    )
    
    
    (10,089
    )
    
    
    (21,447
    )
    
    
    (25,871
    )Less minority interest in pretax income of subsidiaries that have not incurred
fixed charges
    
    
    (2,263
    )
    
    
    (2,070
    )
    
    
    (2,217
    )
    
    
    (2,345
    )
    
    
    (2,333
    )Total
    
    
    51,750
    
    
    
    61,901
    
    
    
    76,452
    
    
    
    107,306
    
    
    
    55,370Earnings
    
    $
    982,966
    
    
    $
    1,120,824
    
    
    $
    1,240,308
    
    
    $
    1,369,217
    
    
    $
    1,148,262Fixed charges
    
    $
    832,166
    
    
    $
    853,325
    
    
    $
    823,393
    
    
    $
    821,048
    
    
    $
    750,820Earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.5
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CQURQ8THERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Q\ GIN AL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF THXAS FILED

DALLAS DIVISION
FEB | 3 7/109
STRICT COURT
SANIJET CORPORATION, es °
Plaintiff, a

v. No. 3-06-CV-135-F

BEAUTY MALL, LTD.,et al.,
Defendants.

MMMM MO O22?

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

BEFORE THE COURT are Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr.’s Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation (Docket No. 131), filed August 13, 2008, Defendant
Beauty Mall’s Objections (Docket No. 132), filed August 28, 2008, Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant’s Objections (Docket No. 133), filed September 12, 2008, and Defendant’s Reply
to Plaintiff's Response (Docket No. 135), filed September 29, 2008. The parties appeared
before the Court for a hearing on this matter on February 11, 2009. Upon consideration of
the parties’ briefings, the facts, and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (Docket No. 131) should be
ADOPTED IN PART AND MODIFIED IN PART.

The Court appreciates Magistrate Judge Sanderson’s work in this difficult case.
However, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate’s Recommendation for the construction
of the claim terms “jet casing” and “by hand” because these terms should be given their

ordinary meaning. Also, the Court accepts the parties’ stipulation for the construction of the

MAUSER\Reaud\order re magistrate's recommendations. wpd.wpd - Page 1


terms “hand manipulatable means for retaining” and “hand manipulatable means for
securing.” The Court adopts the Magistrate’s Recommendation for the construction of all
other claim terms. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation (Docket No. 131) is ADOPTED IN PART AND

MODIFIED IN PART.

Ra
Signed this [3 =_ day of February, 2009.

ROYAL TERGEION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

M:\USER\Reaud\order re magistrate's recommendations. wpd.wpd
Case 3:05-cv-00115-H Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 45
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 17, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-364 Lower Tribunal No. F92-19854

________________ 

### Antonio Johnson, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl E. Trawick, Judge. Antonio Johnson, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
No. 68 SSM 10

In the Matter of Jason Froehlich,

Appellant,

v.

New York State Department of

Corrections and Community

Supervision,

Respondent.

Submitted by Thomas D. Latin, for appellant.

Submitted by Joseph M. Spadola, for respondent

.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, appeal dismissed, with

costs, upon the ground that the two

- Justice dissent at the Appellate Division is not on a

question of law ( see CPLR 5601 [a]). Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein,

Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Decided June 25, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

__________________________________________

PATRICK DRAKE, PRO SE, §

TDCJ-CID No. 487717 §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:06-CV-0002

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director TDCJ-CID, §

MARGARET McCLEARY, §

JAMES L. DANIELS, §

GUSTAVO VAQUERA, §

GLENN D. STOUDER, §

 KARL D. PARKS, §

DANNY R. HEAD, and §

GAYLORD L. THOMPSON, §

§

Defendants. §

 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff PATRICK DRAKE, proceeding pro se and while a prisoner, has filed suit

pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, section 1983 complaining against the above-named

defendants.

On July 13, 2006, the Court issued an Order Denying Motion for Leave to Amend

Portions of Complaint and Order to File Amended Complaint. In the Order, the Court noted

plaintiff had submitted a motion seeking to alter or add to discretion portions of his 168 page

complaint and that his complaint did not comport with the requirement set forth in Rule 8,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it contain a “short and plaint statement of the claim . . . .” 

Plaintiff was given until August 1, 2006 in which to file a motion for leave to file amended

complaint, with an original and a copy of the proposed amended complaint, utilizing the form

promulgated by t he Court and available at the unit law library. Plaintiff was also instructed that

 

 Case 2:06-cv-00002-J-BB Document 17 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 225
2

“[m]inimal attachment of extra pages will be allowed but must comply with the requirement that

plaintiff state his claim briefing and concisely.”

Plaintiff was warned that a failure to timely and fully comply with the Order would result

in the dismissal of the instant cause without further notice.

The response period has expired, and plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s July

13, 2006, Order Denying Motion for Leave to Amend Portions of Complaint and Order to File

Amended Complaint or provide any reason to excuse this failure.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

The referral of the instant cause to the United States Magistrate Judge is hereby

withdrawn.

This Civil Rights Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to any attorney of record by

first class mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

/s/ Mary Lou Robinson 

MARY LOU ROBINSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 2:06-cv-00002-J-BB Document 17 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 226