alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7623
ROGER OSBORN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CINDY OSBORN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-02305-AW) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Osborn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roger Osborn appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against Defendant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Osborn v. Osborn , No. 8:07-cv-02305-AW (D. Md. filed Sept. 11, 2007; entered Sept. 12, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2




        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pacific
Northwest Productions Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Davinder
Bains, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of
Registrant, 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 and belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.

                             PACIFIC NORTHWEST PRODUCTIONS INC.,
                             Registrant

Date:  June 27, 2005        /s/ Davinder Bains
                              ----------------------------------
                              By: Davinder Bains, Chief Financial
                                  Officer and Principal Accounting
                                  Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131781 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131781 

 COA: 270126 
 Wayne CC: 05-010134-01

THOMAS THEODORE DIXON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
#### James Thomas HART, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Lawrence L. BRAUN, Defendant—Appellee, and Terry DAVIS; et al., Defendants.

No. 03-15374.

D.C. No. CV-02-000185-CW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Frank G. Prantil, Attorney at Law, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Gary M. Lepper, Lepper, Schaefer *&*Harrington, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellee and Defendants.

Before WALLACE, KOZINSKI, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Hart appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his former state public defender, Braun. Hart does not qualify for relief under section 1983, because Braun’s allegedly defective representation was not tainted by collusion with state prosecutors and occurred during the performance of his “traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” *West v. Atkins,*487 U.S. 42, 50, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); *see also Miranda v. Clark County, Nev.,*319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (holding that a public defender who “subpoenaed no witnesses and mounted no defense” was not liable under section 1983 because he “had assumed his role as counsel and thus had begun to perform a ‘lawyer’s traditional functions” ’ (quoting *Polk*
      *531
      *County v. Dodson,*454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981))).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Wanda MANNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
James M. MOORE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Eileen T. MOORE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 03, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### Stanley Mark BALLENGER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John BARKLEY, SCDC Inmate Service Coordinator, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-7977.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

*865Stanley Mark Ballenger, Appellant pro se. David Michael Tatarsky, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Stanley M. Ballenger seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for appointed counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Ballenger seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Victory Eagle
Resources Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Angel Cruz, the President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Reporting 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 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.

Dated: June 20, 2011

Angel Cruz/s/ Angel Cruz(Principal
Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting
Officer)

---
James Edward MATHIS, Doc #474031, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2230

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

James Edward Mathis, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and SMITH, Concur.
Exhibit 10.2


 


WAIVER


 


In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.


 


I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my
employer or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United
States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the
TARP Capital Purchase Program.


 


This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or
any state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.


 


 


	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
  Date:
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 of
Pixelworks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce A. Walicek, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Bruce A. WalicekBruce A. WalicekPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

March 9, 2011
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1) | such                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 such Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bridge                Capital Holdings. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 6, 2008 | /s/                Thomas A. Sa                                                        |   |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | Thomas                A. Sa                                                            |   |
|                                  | Executive                Vice President                                                |   |
|                                  | Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                  | (Principal                Financial Officer)                                           |   |

----
Order issued May 1, 2013

S

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

________________________________________

No. 05-12-00985-CR

________________________________________

TRACY LYNN SIMS, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

O R D E R

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the January 25, 2012 motion of 

Kathleen A. Walsh for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the 

Clerk of the Court to remove Kathleen A. Walsh as counsel of record for appellant. We 

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to 

Tracy Lynn Sims, Jr., TDCJ No. 1798759, Bradshaw State Jail, P.O. Box 9000, Henderson, 

Texas, 75653.

 /David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLEN MARK, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:89-cr-00263; 1:05-cv-01037-FWB-PT) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 6, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen Mark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Glen Mark, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Mark’s motions to expedite the appeal and 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
exv4w10






Exhibit 4.10




FORM 51-102F3




MATERIAL CHANGE REPORT





	1.	 	Name and Address of Company:
	 
	 	 	Precision Drilling Trust (the “Trust”)

4200, 150 — 6th Avenue S.W.

Calgary, AB T2P 3Y7
	 
	2.	 	Date of Material Change:
	 
	 	 	December 23, 2008
	 
	3.	 	News Release:
	 
	 	 	A press release disclosing the material change, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Schedule “A”, was issued on December 23, 2008 through the facilities of MarketWire and was
filed with the applicable securities regulatory authorities via SEDAR on the same date.
	 
	4.	 	Summary of Material Change:
	 
	 	 	The Trust announced that it has closed its previously announced acquisition (the
“Acquisition”) of Grey Wolf, Inc. (“Grey Wolf”), pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger
dated August 24, 2008, as amended December 2, 2008 (the “Merger Agreement”), with Grey Wolf,
Precision Drilling Corporation and Precision Lobos Corporation (“Lobos”).
	 
	5.	 	Full Description of the Material Change:
	 
	 	 	The Acquisition was completed by way of a merger under the applicable laws of the State of
Texas. Pursuant to the Acquisition, Grey Wolf was merged with and into Lobos (a direct,
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trust) pursuant to the Texas Business Corporations Act and
the Texas Corporation Law. Accordingly, the separate legal existence of Grey Wolf has ceased
and Lobos is the surviving corporation.
	 
	 	 	Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Grey Wolf could elect to receive
either cash or trust units of the Trust (the “Trust Units”) in exchange for their shares of
Grey Wolf common stock. Each share of Grey Wolf common stock was convertible, at the option
of the holder, into U.S.$9.02 in cash or 0.4225 Trust Units, subject to proration. The
total consideration paid by the Trust to shareholders of Grey Wolf in connection with the
Acquisition was approximately U.S.$906,465,529 and 33,999,666 Trust Units.
	 
	 	 	See the press release attached hereto as Schedule “A” for a full description of the material
change.
	 
	6.	 	Reliance on Subsection 7.1(2) or (3) of National Instrument 51-102:
	 
	 	 	Not applicable.
	 
	7.	 	Omitted Information:
	 
	 	 	Not applicable.






 









 





- 2 -





	8.	 	Executive Officer:
	 
	 	 	For further information, please contact Darren Ruhr, Vice President, Corporate Services and
Corporate Secretary, at (403) 716-4500.
	 
	9.	 	Date of Report:
	 
	 	 	December 23, 2008.
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 002 8 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. TIMOTHY JOHN STRYKER ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including July 2 6 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

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

June 17 2022

06/17/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0028
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DAVID E. MANDEVILLE,

Petitioner

v.

THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE PA. 

SUPREME COURT,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 88 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2022, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Application for an 

Immediate Hearing are DENIED.
EXHIBIT 3

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 23-3 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
exv10w25w1








Exhibit 10.25.1




Named Executive Officer Compensation Information — 2008 Bonus Awards



The table below provides information regarding the RSUs granted to the Company’s named executive
officers in lieu of cash payments under the Bonus Plan for the 2008 performance period:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Value of Cash	 	RSU Equivalent
	Named Executive Officer	 	Bonus Award (1)	 	Grant (2)
	Ronald W. Barrett, PhD
	 	$	266,250.00	 	 	 	9,872	 
	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	William G. Harris
	 	$	82,687.50	 	 	 	3,065	 
	Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief
Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	William J. Rieflin
	 	$	150,820.31	 	 	 	5,592	 
	President
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Kenneth C. Cundy, PhD
	 	$	83,737.50	 	 	 	3,104	 
	Senior Vice President of Preclinical Development
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	David R. Savello, PhD
	 	$	81,600.00	 	 	 	3,025	 
	Senior Vice President of Development
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 









 




			
	(1)	 	Cash Bonus Award amounts determined under the Bonus Plan for the 2008 performance period.
	 
	(2)	 	RSUs granted pursuant to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan at the close of trading on January
14, 2009 at $26.97 per share (the closing stock price of the Company’s common stock on the
Nasdaq Global Select Market), rounded down to the nearest whole share (no fractional shares
were issued). The RSUs, which may be settled in stock, are immediately vested in full at the
time of grant.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 03-2663 BRIAN TAMBORELLI, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Selya, Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges .

Brian D. Tamborelli on brief pro se. Allen N. David , Elizabeth A. Houldi ng and Peabody & Arnold LLP , on brief for appellees.

December 3, 2004Per Curiam . Brian Tamborelli has appealed the district

court's dismissal of his complaint, in which he co ntends that Southern New England School of Law (SNESL) and several of its officers solicitedhis attendance and tuition money by, inter alia, fraudulently misrepresenting the statu s of its ability to obtain certification by the American Bar Association (ABA). We have reviewedthe parties' briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm .

We have recently considered substantially identical actions filed by other SNESL graduates. See Rodi v. S. New Engl. Sch. of Law , ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. 2004 ) [ 2004 WL 2537204]; Jolicoeur v. S. New Engl. Sch. of Law , 104 Fed. Appx. 745 (1st Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Tamborelli's action suffered from th e s ame defect as Jolicoeur's: it w as not timely commenced. By no later than December 1999, Tamborelli knew that any statements regarding the imminent likelihood of ABA certification were false. By that time, the ABA had twic e de nied SNESL's application for accreditation and, in derogation of a promise Tamb orelli alleges
was made, SNESL had failedto appeal that denial. Tamborelli makes
no cogent argument for any later accrual date. T amborelli's action, filed in July of 2003, was, therefore, barred by the threeyear statute of limitations. Unlike the complaint filed by plaintiff Rodi, the timeliness of Tamborelli's federal complaint is not redeemed by any savings statute. Cf. Rodi v. S. New Engl. Sch. of Law , ___ F.3d at ___ [2004 WL 2537204, at *10]. -2--3- We reject Tamborelli's criticismthat the district court did not allow him to amend his complaint. For one thing he never sought to amend his complaint in the district court. For another thing, nothing he has stated in his appellate briefing suggests that he could successfully overcome the time bar. Indeed, his reply brief expresses his own contradictory vi ews on whether any amendment would be futile.

Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's failure to recuse itself. See United States v. Ayala , 289 F.3d 16, 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (limning the standard of review).

We need go no further. For the reasons stated, the order of dismissal is affirmed .